1. Petitioners are Accused 1 to 5 in C.C. No. 1195 of 2025 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Jagtial, for the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Respondent No.2 is the wife of petitioner No.1 who filed complaint stating that after marriage, her husband and in-laws started harassing her both mentally and physically demanding additional dowry of Rs.10 lacs; after some time, petitioner No.1 left for Bahrain; subsequently, he came down to India to attend the funerals of his mother, who died of ill-health and thereafter, stated living with her sisters-in-law and their husbands; at that time, when Respondent No.2 went there, all of them threatened her to bring additional dowry otherwise they would perform another marriage to petitioner No.1. Again, thereafter, petitioner No.1 left for Bahrain. Based on the complaint, police of Jagtial Rural registered FIR No. 246 of 2024 for the mentioned offences and filed charge sheet.
2. The case of petitioners is that Respondent No.2 filed complaint with a mala fide intention; the complaint does not satisfy the ingredients of the offences alleged, hence, continuing the proceedings against them is nothing but abuse of process of law. It is stated, petitioners 2 to 5 never interfered with the matrimonial life of Respondent No. 2 and petitioner No.1, however, charge sheet was filed though there are no specific allegations against them. Petitioners 2 to 5 never resided with petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 in one house and they had been residing separately. In fact, RespndentNo.2 lived with Petitioner No.1 only for two months in her matrimonial house and petitioner No.1 left for Bahrain for the purpose of employment; after he left the country, Respondent No.2 also left the matrimonial home and went to her parents house and thereafter, there was no communication between both of them. It is the further case of petitioners that after the death of petitioner No.1’s mother, he visited India to attend her last rites, taking advantage of the same, Respondent No.2 filed false case against all the petitioners.
3. Respondent No.2 filed counter reiterating the allegations made in the complaint. Further, it is stated, the charge sheet was filed after due investigation and the Investigating Officer examined witnesses, collected material and found sufficient evidence against all the accused, hence, they cannot seek appreciation of evidence in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. According to her, cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC is generally a continuing offence and cannot be discussed into isolated incidents and the contention of petitioners that allegations are vague is wholly incorrect. It is stated, the allegation that petitioners 2 to 5 never interfered in the matrimonial life of RespdnentNo.2 is totally false; the complaint specifically attributes active participation of Accused 2 to 5 in demanding additional dowry, instigating petitioner No.1 and threatening Respondent No.2 and those allegations are ultimately proved, is a matter for trial. Merely because some accused are residing separately does not automatically entitle them to quash and the complaint specifically alleges their active participation and separate residence is only a defense which requires evidence. Respondent No.2 denied the allegation that compliant has been filed only to extort money from petitioners, hence, she requests to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
4. Heard Sri P. Limhadri, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri Anugu Anvesh Reddy, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and Ms. Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1 – State.
5. Learned counsel for petitioners relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana (2024 INSC 953) and that of this Court in Criminal Petition No. 266 of 2022 and contends that this case was filed with a mala fide intention with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance on accused and with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge, hence, prays this Court to quash the proceedings in the mentioned C.C.
6. There is no dispute with regard to the marriage between Respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1 on 12.06.2015. From a perusal of the charge sheet, it is clear that Respondent No.2 was blessed with a son who is aged eight years at the time of filing the charge sheet. According to her, petitioners harassed her for additional dowry; unable to bear the same, she left the matrimonial house; thereafter, her husband left for Bahrain and after the death of her mother-in-law, he came to India. Whereas the case of petitioners is that after the death of their mother, petitioner No.1 came to India to attend her last rites and thereafter he left for Bahrain. Petitioner No.1 never stayed with petitioners 2 to 5.
7. Except general allegations, there are no specific overt acts against petitioners 2 to 5. Admittedly, petitioners 2 to 5 who are sisters-in-law and their husbands have been staying away from petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2, hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of process of law.
8. In this context, it is pertinent to note that in Dara Lakshmi Narayana (supra), it has been held that 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-recognized 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 particularized allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members.
9. In Criminal Petition No. 266 of 2022, this Court, considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand ((2010) 7 SCC 667) and State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal (1992 SCC (Cri) 426) , held that since the allegations in the FIR or complaint do not prima facie disclose the commission of alleged offences against petitioners therein, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them.
10. In the light of the law discussed supra and also in view of the fact that petitioners 2 to 5 never stayed with petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 and there are no specific overt acts against them, except the general allegations, this Court is of the opinion that proceedings against petitioners 2 to 5 are liable to be quashed.
11. The Criminal Petition is therefore, allowed in part. The proceedings against petitioners 2 to 5 in C.C.No. 1195 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum –Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Jagtial are quashed.
