Common Order

1. Since both the Criminal Petition and the Criminal Revision Case have been filed by the petitioners seeking substantially identical reliefs in relation to the same pending Sessions Case, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Criminal Petition No. 6726 of 2020 has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “CrPC”) seeking quashment of the proceedings against the petitioners in S.C. No. 724 of 2019, pending on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge-cum-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad.

3. Criminal Revision Case No. 412 of 2024 has been filed by the revision petitioners/accused challenging the correctness and propriety of the order dated 08.01.2024 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 312 of 2022 in S.C. No. 724 of 2019, whereby the petition filed by them seeking discharge was dismissed.

4. The petitioners in the Criminal Petition and the Criminal Revision Case are arrayed as Accused Nos. 1, 2, and 4, respectively, in the aforesaid Sessions Case arising out of Crime No. 920 of 2018, registered at Saroornagar Police Station, Rachakonda, for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”).

5. I have heard Mr. Nandigam Krishna Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners; Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing respondent No.1-State, in both the matters and Mr.V.Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2-de facto complainant in Crl.P. No.6726 of 2020.

6. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the marriage between the deceased and the son of petitioner No.2/Accused No.2 was solemnized on 16.06.2017. At the time of the marriage, it is alleged that dowry comprising cash of Rs.8,50,000/-, 1½ thula of gold, and household articles was given. It is further alleged that, after the deceased's husband was diagnosed with tuberculosis (TB), the deceased continued her employment while also taking care of him during his treatment at KIMS Hospital. According to the prosecution, during this period, the accused repeatedly abused the deceased by referring to her as an “ill-fated woman” (Nashta Jathakuralu), subjected her to mental cruelty, and demanded additional dowry to meet her husband's medical expenses. The prosecution further alleges that, on 23.12.2018, Accused No.1, the sister of the deceased's husband, assaulted the deceased with a chappal and, along with the other accused, drove her out of the matrimonial home. It is stated that, shortly before her death, the deceased informed her brother, the de facto complainant, of the incident over the telephone. Allegedly unable to bear the harassment and dowry-related cruelty, the deceased committed suicide by hanging on 23.12.2018. Thereafter, the deceased's husband died on 31.12.2018. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of the IPC and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where it was taken on file as a Sessions Case. During the pendency of the proceedings, Accused No.3, the father-in-law of the deceased, died on 04.06.2020.

7.1. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners is wholly unsustainable in law, as the essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC are not made out from the material collected during the course of the investigation. It is submitted that there is no material to establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand for dowry soon before her death, which is a sine qua non for attracting the offence under Section 304-B IPC. According to the petitioners, the deceased committed suicide due to severe depression upon learning that her husband, who was suffering from tuberculosis, was not expected to survive. Therefore, it is contended that her death had no nexus whatsoever with any alleged dowry-related harassment. It is further contended that the allegations contained in the FIR and the charge sheet are false, omnibus in nature, and devoid of any specific overt acts attributable to the individual petitioners. In the absence of any material establishing a proximate and live link between the alleged acts of cruelty and the death of the deceased, it is submitted that the continuation of the prosecution amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. On the aforesaid grounds, the petitioners seek exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the proceedings in the Sessions Case.

               7.2. With regard to the Criminal Revision Case, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the order dated 08.01.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge dismissing the discharge petition is contrary to law and the material available on record. It is argued that the trial Court mechanically rejected the discharge application without examining whether the uncontroverted allegations and the material collected during the investigation prima facie disclose the essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC. It is contended that neither the FIR nor the statements of the witnesses disclose any specific allegation of demand for dowry or cruelty in connection with such demand soon before the death of the deceased. According to the petitioners, the allegations are general and omnibus in nature, without attributing any specific overt acts to them. It is further submitted that there is no material establishing a live and proximate nexus between the alleged harassment and the death of the deceased. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that petitioner No.1, who is the sister of the deceased's husband, was merely taking care of her brother and has been falsely implicated. It is further submitted that petitioner No.2, the mother-in-law of the deceased, herself suffered the tragic loss of her son, daughter-in-law, and husband, and has been unnecessarily prosecuted by taking advantage of the unfortunate circumstances.

               7.3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on Mudavath Jyothi v. State of Telangana in Criminal Petition No.6427 of 2019 (decided on 01.06.2021), wherein this Court quashed the proceedings against the brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased, holding that mere relationship with the husband is not sufficient to prosecute the relatives unless the prosecution material contains specific allegations disclosing their active involvement in the acts of cruelty or demand for dowry. Learned Senior Counsel also placed reliance on Susanta Kumar Dalei @ Susanta Kumar Dalai v. State of Odisha, 2026 Supreme (SC) 556, and submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the scope of discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C., reiterated that, at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is required to examine whether the material placed by the prosecution gives rise to a grave suspicion against the accused, and that mere suspicion, general allegations, or material lacking specificity cannot justify compelling the accused to undergo a criminal trial.

               7.4. It is, therefore, contended that, even if the prosecution case is accepted in its entirety, no offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC is made out against the petitioners. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside and that the petitioners be discharged.

8.1. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, opposed both the Criminal Petition and the Criminal Revision Case, contending that the material collected during the course of the investigation prima facie discloses the commission of an offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC and, therefore, that the proceedings are neither liable to be quashed nor are the petitioners entitled to be discharged. It is submitted that the prosecution has specifically alleged that, after the marriage of the deceased with the brother and son of petitioner Nos.1 and 2, respectively, the accused, despite having received dowry at the time of marriage, subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment by demanding additional dowry. It is further contended that, after Rajesh was diagnosed with tuberculosis, the deceased took care of him during the course of his treatment; however, the accused persistently abused her by calling her "Nashta Jathakuralu" and held her responsible for her husband's illness, while repeatedly demanding that she bring additional dowry to meet his medical expenses.

               8.2. According to the prosecution, on 23.12.2018, the deceased informed her brother over the telephone that Accused No.1 had assaulted her with a chappal and that all the accused had driven her out of the matrimonial home. Soon thereafter, she was found hanging. It is submitted that the investigation, including the statement of the de facto complainant, prima facie establishes that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with the demand for dowry soon before her death. It is, therefore, contended that the disputed questions of fact raised by the petitioners can be adjudicated only in the course of a full-fledged trial. Accordingly, it is prayed that both the Criminal Petition and the Criminal Revision Case be dismissed.

9. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

10. A careful examination of the charge sheet and the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. reveals that the allegations against the petitioners are general and omnibus in nature. Except for bald assertions that the accused harassed the deceased and demanded additional dowry, none of the witnesses attributes any specific overt act to either of the petitioners, so as to demonstrate that they subjected the deceased to cruelty or harassment in connection with a demand for dowry soon before her death.

11. Even the allegation that the deceased informed her brother over the telephone that she had been assaulted and driven out of the matrimonial home does not, by itself, disclose that the alleged incident was connected with any demand for dowry. Although there is a reference to a demand for additional dowry to meet the medical expenses of the deceased's husband, none of the witnesses has stated the particulars of such demand, including the time, manner, or quantum thereof. Mere asking for money towards medical treatment cannot, in the absence of supporting particulars, be construed as a demand for additional dowry.

12. That apart, the complaint itself states that the deceased had been taking care of her husband's treatment. The other allegations, namely, that the deceased was abused by being referred to as an “ill-fated woman” (Nashta Jathakuralu) and that she was assaulted with a chappal one day prior to the occurrence, even if accepted as true, are not, on the basis of the witness statements, shown to have been connected with any demand for dowry.

13. Further, the fact that the deceased committed suicide at a different residential location, stated to be the residence of the deceased and her husband, prima facie indicates that the deceased and her husband were residing separately from the petitioners. The alleged incident at the residence of petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 appears to have occurred when the deceased's husband was undergoing medical treatment there.

14. A cumulative reading of these circumstances does not disclose the essential nexus between the alleged harassment and any demand for dowry, which is an indispensable ingredient of the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC. It is also not in dispute that the deceased's husband was suffering from advanced tuberculosis and succumbed to the illness within eight days of the death of the deceased.

15. The defence has consistently asserted that the deceased was under severe mental stress and depression on account of her husband's deteriorating medical condition and the imminent apprehension of his death. Although such a defence cannot ordinarily be adjudicated at the threshold stage, the surrounding circumstances assume significance while examining whether the prosecution has, at the very least, produced prima facie material connecting the death of the deceased with dowry-related cruelty. In the absence of such material, the prosecution cannot rely merely upon the fact that the death was unnatural and occurred within seven years of marriage to invoke the provisions of Section 304-B IPC.

16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that the expression “soon before her death” occurring in Section 304-B IPC necessarily requires the existence of a proximate and live link between the cruelty or harassment arising out of a demand for dowry and the consequential death. In Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and Others, (2000) 5 SCC 207, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the prosecution must establish such proximity before the statutory presumption can be invoked. Likewise, in Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana, (2021) 6 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that the prosecution must establish that the cruelty or harassment was in connection with a demand for dowry and that it was proximate to the death of the deceased.

17. The allegations against the present petitioners also require scrutiny in the light of the settled principle that criminal prosecution cannot be permitted to continue against the relatives of the husband merely by virtue of their relationship with him. In Mudavath Jyothi v. State of Telangana (supra), this Court held that vague and omnibus allegations against the relatives of the husband, without specific attribution of overt acts, do not justify the continuance of criminal proceedings. The principle laid down therein squarely applies to the facts of the present case, as the material placed by the prosecution fails to distinguish the individual role attributed to each of the petitioners.

18. Further, the scope of discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. has been authoritatively explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Susanta Kumar Dalei @ Susanta Kumar Dalai v. State of Odisha (supra), wherein it was held that, unless the material collected during the investigation gives rise to a grave suspicion regarding the involvement of the accused, compelling the accused to undergo a criminal trial would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Similarly, in Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where two views are equally possible and the material on record gives rise only to some suspicion, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the accused is entitled to be discharged.

19. In the present case, even if the entire prosecution material is accepted at its face value, it does not prima facie disclose the essential ingredients constituting the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC. The allegations remain vague and bereft of material particulars, and no material has been placed on record to establish a proximate and live nexus between the alleged demand for dowry and the death of the deceased. Permitting the prosecution to continue in such circumstances would amount to subjecting the petitioners to an unnecessary criminal trial in the absence of the foundational requirements of the offence. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuance of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

20. For the afore stated reasons, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 in S.C.No. 724 of 2019, pending on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge-cum-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, are hereby quashed.

In view of the conclusion, the order dated 08.01.2024 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 312 of 2022 in S.C. No. 724 of 2019 by the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, refusing discharge cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. Consequently, the Criminal Revision Case is also allowed and the petitioners are discharged for the alleged offence in the Sessions Case. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.