Common Order

1. Considering that the petitions are filed by the selfsame accused in the calendar cases seeking analogous reliefs, these petitions are heard together and are being adjudicated by way of this common order.

Crl.P. No. 13221 of 2024:

2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), seeking quashment of the proceedings in C.C. No. 1626 of 2022 arising out of Crime No. 282/2023 on the file of the V Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar, Hasthinapuram.

3. The petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 324, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

Crl.P. No. 13329 of 2024

4. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, seeking quashment of the proceedings in C.C. No. 4033 of 2022 arising out of Crime No. 685/2022 on the file of the V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri, Uppal at L.B. Nagar.

5. The petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, “D.P. Act”).

6. Heard Mr. Janardhan Goud Sunkari, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State.

7. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 15.12.2010, and during the subsistence of their wedlock, they were blessed with three children. It is alleged that respondent No.2 was subjected to harassment by the petitioner on account of demands for additional dowry, culminating in alleged incidents on 01.09.2022, 01.04.2023, and 03.04.2023, involving physical assault and criminal intimidation. Based on a complaint, a case in Crime No. 685 of 2022 was registered. It is also brought on record that another case in Crime No. 282 of 2023 has been registered on similar allegations, indicating an ongoing matrimonial dispute between the parties.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, even if the allegations are taken at face value, they are general, vague, and omnibus in nature, without attributing any specific overt acts to the petitioner. It is further contended that the case rests solely on the statements of interested witnesses, namely, the family members of the complainant, without any independent corroboration. The petitioner asserts that there is no material on record to substantiate the alleged demand for dowry or to establish cruelty of such a nature as to attract the provisions invoked. It is also urged that the investigation has been conducted in a mechanical manner, without collection of credible or cogent evidence. Further contends that by initiating parallel proceedings, including registration of multiple FIRs on similar allegations, is demonstrating abuse of criminal. According to the petitioner, the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 498-A, 324/323, and 506 of IPC, as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act, are not satisfied in the present case. It is thus contended that the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide intentions and have been initiated solely to harass the petitioner. Accordingly, he seeks quashment of the proceedings.

9. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the statements of respondent No.2 and other witnesses consistently narrate the incidents on specified dates and clearly implicate the petitioner. It is contended that the veracity of the evidence cannot be examined at the stage of considering a petition for quashment. It is further submitted that where a prima facie case exists, quashing of proceedings would be impermissible. Accordingly, dismissal of the petitions is sought.

10. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor supports the prosecution case and submits that the allegations require thorough examination based on the material collected during investigation, which can only be undertaken in a full-fledged trial. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

11. I have carefully perused the material on record.

12. A perusal of the material collected during investigation, along with the charge sheet filed by the prosecution, would prima facie indicate that the complainant/respondent No.2 was subjected to continuous physical and mental harassment by the petitioner, allegedly with the active support of accused Nos.2 and 3, in connection with persistent demands for additional dowry. It is further alleged that, despite intervention by elders and the conduct of several panchayats aimed at reconciliation, the accused continued their alleged acts of harassment.

13. Specific incidents dated 01.09.2022, 01.04.2023, and 03.04.2023 have been relied upon by the prosecution, wherein the petitioner is alleged to have physically assaulted respondent No.2, demanded divorce, and issued threats, thereby compelling her to leave the matrimonial home. The statements of witnesses recorded during investigation disclose allegations relating to dowry demands, sustained harassment, prior mediations, and the aforementioned incidents.

14. Significantly, the record also reflects the statement of an independent witness, who, though not a family member, has deposed to having knowledge of the matrimonial disputes and the panchayats conducted between the parties. Such testimony lends prima facie support to the prosecution version regarding the existence of disputes and allegations of harassment. On the basis of the material so collected, the Investigating Officer has concluded that Accused No.1 is liable for the offences alleged.

15. At this stage, it is trite law that while exercising jurisdiction for quashment of criminal proceedings, the Court is required to examine whether the uncontroverted allegations and the material on record, taken at their face value, prima facie disclose the commission of any offence. The principles governing such exercise of jurisdiction have been authoritatively laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein it was held that quashment is justified only in exceptional circumstances, such as where the allegations do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide intent or are an abuse of the process of law.

16. In the present case, the allegations of continued harassment in connection with dowry demands, supported by witness statements, including those of mediators who have spoken about prior disputes and reconciliation efforts along with the specific incidents dated 01.09.2022, 01.04.2023, and 03.04.2023, prima facie indicate acts involving physical assault and criminal intimidation attributable to the petitioner.

17. At this juncture, it is well settled that the Court cannot embark upon a detailed appreciation of evidence or assess its probative value. In K. Neelaveni v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, 2010 INSC 160, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that evaluation of evidence falls within the domain of trial and not within the limited scope of quashment proceedings.

18. However, the contention of the petitioner that the allegations are omnibus and general in nature, particularly with respect to other accused persons who are not before this Court, requires cautious consideration in light of the principles laid down in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599, and Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC 735. These decisions emphasize that vague and general allegations, especially against relatives of the husband, without specific attribution of overt acts, may not be sufficient to sustain criminal prosecution.

19. That being said, insofar as the petitioner/Accused No.1 is concerned, the allegations are not merely general but are supported by specific instances of conduct, including physical assault, threats, and dowry-related harassment. The fact that the witnesses are related to the complainant does not, by itself, render their testimony unreliable. It is a settled principle of law that the evidence of interested witnesses cannot be discarded solely on that ground if it otherwise inspires confidence. The absence of independent corroboration may be a matter for consideration during trial, but not a determinative factor at the stage of quashment.

20. With regard to the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution is required to prima facie establish “cruelty” as defined under the provision, which includes (i) conduct likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb, or health, or (ii) harassment with a view to coercing her or her relatives to meet unlawful demands for property or valuable security. The allegations in the present case, relating to continuous harassment coupled with dowry demands and supported by specific incidents, prima facie satisfy the ingredients of the said provision as against the petitioner.

21. Similarly, the allegations of physical assault attract the provisions of Sections 323 and 324 IPC, depending upon the nature of injuries and the means employed, while the alleged threats fall within the ambit of Section 506 IPC, all of which are matters to be established during trial.

22. The contention regarding multiplicity of proceedings or registration of multiple FIRs on similar allegations does not, by itself, warrant quashment, particularly when the incidents are stated to be distinct and arise out of separate causes of action. Unless it is demonstrated that the proceedings are wholly malicious, vexatious, or devoid of any factual foundation, such a ground cannot be accepted as sufficient for quashing the proceedings.

23. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that, insofar as the petitioner/Accused No.1 is concerned, the material on record prima facie discloses the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. The issues raised involve disputed questions of fact, which necessitate appreciation of evidence and can only be adjudicated upon in a full-fledged trial.

24. Accordingly, both the Criminal Petitions are liable to be dismissed and are, therefore, dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.