Telangana High Court

Kasula Vidya Sagar vs The State Of Telangana on 10 November, 2025

Author: Juvvadi Sridevi

Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi

             THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

                   CRIMINAL PETITION No.12500 of 2024

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the

petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 seeking to quash the proceedings

against them in C.C.No.4267 of 2022 on the file of XIII Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad (for short 'trial Court'),

pertaining to Crime No.399 of 2022 of Women P.S. CCS, DD, registered

for the offences under Section 498-A, 406 of the Indian Penal Code (for

short 'IPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short 'the

Act').

2. Heard Mr. Y.Soma Srinath Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioners. None entered appearance on behalf of respondent No.2,

hence heard Mr. M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State on behalf of respondent

No.2 as well. Perused the record.

3. The gist of the complaint is that the 2nd respondent-de facto

complainant was married to one Kasula Abhitej in the month of March,

2017. Within one month of their marriage they both left to U.S.A. as they

both used to do software jobs. They were happy for one year and

blessed with a baby girl. Later she came to know that the Accused No.1

is having anxiety, panic attacks, depression and the fact was hidden prior

to marriage. Since then Accused No.1 started harassing 2nd respondent

mentally and physically. Petitioner-accused No.2 is the father and

accused No.3 is mother of Abhitej and they used to instigate accused

No.1 over phone. 2nd respondent and her husband came to India for visa

stamping and went to in laws house. But her in laws did not allow her to

go to her parents house and harassed her physically and mentally. All

the accused started demanding her to give Rs.10,00,000/-. Unable to

bear the torture 2nd respondent came to her parents house along with her

daughter.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that the

petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the case

by the de facto complainant only to rope the petitioners in a criminal case

being parents of her husband. It is further contended that there are no

specific allegations against the petitioners and the ingredients of offences

under Section 498-A and 406 of IPC are not made out. Thus, he prayed

to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor

submitted all the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in the

charge sheet are subject matter of trial, and hence, this is not a fit case to

quash the proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss

the petition.

6. For the sake of convenience, Section 498-A of IPC is extracted

hereunder:

498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.--

Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.-- For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means--(a)any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or(b)harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

7. In the judgment of State of Haryana and others v. CH.Bhajan Lal

and others 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:

The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:

(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;

1992 SCC (Cri) 426

(2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

8. Before appreciating the merits in the present case, it is necessary

to refer to the view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing

with situations akin to that which arises in the present matter. In

Mahmood Ali and others. v. State of U.P and others 2, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has observed that when an accused comes before the

Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. or

2023 INSC 684

extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the

FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that

such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with

the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances

the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more

closely. Because once the complainant decides to proceed against the

accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc.,

then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all

the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the

averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the

necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will

not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the

FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the

necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or

not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look

into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the

case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and

circumspection try to read in between the lines.

9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is

apposite to refer to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court of

India in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State of Telangana

and another 3 wherein at Paragraph Nos.18, 24, 25, 28, 29, 31 & 32 it

was held that:

"18. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that appellant

instigated him to do so, respondent No.2 has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment. She has also not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations.

24. Insofar as appellant Nos.2 to 6 are concerned, we find that they have no connection to the matter at hand and have been dragged into the web of crime without any rhyme or reason. A perusal of the FIR would indicate that no substantial and specific allegations have been made against appellant Nos.2 to 6 other than stating that they used to instigate appellant No.1 for demanding more dowry. It is also an admitted fact that they never resided with the couple namely appellant No.1 and respondent

resided together at Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh. Appellant Nos. 4 to 6 live in Nellore, Bengaluru and Guntur respectively.

25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal

AIR 2025 SUPREME COURT 173

provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. In the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the family of appellant No.1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them.

28. The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498A of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them.

29. We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated under Section 498A of the IPC should remain silent and forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. That is not the intention of our aforesaid observations but we should not encourage a case like as in the present one, where as a counterblast to the petition for dissolution of marriage sought by the

first appellant-husband of the second respondent herein, a complaint under Section 498A of the IPC is lodged by the latter. In fact, the insertion of the said provision is meant mainly for the protection of a woman who is subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home primarily due to an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security in the form of dowry. However, sometimes it is misused as in the present case.

31. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 held that the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realties into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment by the husband's close relatives who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.

32. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FIR No.82 of 2022 filed by respondent No.2 was initiated with ulterior motives to settle personal scores and grudges against appellant No.1 and his family members i.e., appellant Nos.2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present case at hand falls within category (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lal. Therefore, the High Court, in the present case, erred in not exercising the powers available to it under Section 482 CrPC and thereby, failed to prevent abuse of the Court's process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants."

10. A bare perusal of the complaint, statement of witnesses and the

charge sheet shows that except the allegation of instigating the accused

No.1 over phone all the other allegations against the petitioners are

wholly general and omnibus in nature. Even if they are taken in their

entirety, they do not prima facie make out a case against the petitioners

herein. None of the petitioners have been attributed any specific role in

furtherance of the general and vague allegations made against them.

Though the de facto complainant has narrated incidents of cruelty in the

FIR, they do not fulfill the ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC and the

material on record neither discloses any particulars of the offence alleged

nor discloses the specific role/allegations assigned to any of the

petitioners in the commission of the offences.