1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “CrPC”) seeking quashment of the proceedings in F.I.R. No.96 of 2024 on the file of Women police station, West Zone, Hyderabad registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 324, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’), and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibiiton Act, 1961 (for short the ‘DP Act’). The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 7 in the above Calendar Case.
2. Heard Mr. Satish Kumar Dornala, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent-State.
3.1. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the de facto complainant married Accused No.1 on 15.07.2022 at Khammam in accordance with Muslim customs. It is alleged that, at the time of marriage, her parents provided substantial dowry comprising cash, gold ornaments, household articles, a plot of land, and other valuables. After the marriage, the couple initially resided at Mangalagiri and subsequently shifted to Hyderabad.
3.2. The complainant alleges that Accused No.1, along with his parents, sisters, relatives, and other accused, subjected her to continuous physical and mental cruelty by taunting her with regard to her previous marriage, demanding additional dowry, and harassing her on various occasions. It is further alleged that Accused No.1 obtained a sum of Rs.50 lakhs from her parents for his business and thereafter subjected her to repeated acts of cruelty, including physical assaults, criminal intimidation, and humiliation.
3.3. The complainant has also alleged that Accused No.1 suspected her character, compelled her to consume contraceptive pills, resulting in a miscarriage, deprived her of sleep, assaulted her with a knife and other objects causing injuries, and forced her to have sexual relations with other men for monetary gain. She further alleged that Accused No.1 maintained an illicit relationship and pressurised her to obtain a divorce.
3.4. It is also alleged that the complainant’s father-in-law attempted to sexually assault her and that, when she informed Accused No.1 of the incident, he assaulted her. According to the complainant, on 06.10.2023, Accused No.1 forcibly took away her mobile phone and jewellery, drove her out of the matrimonial home, and subsequently refused to reconcile with her. She further alleged that, on 21.03.2024, Accused No.1 telephoned her from an unknown number, abused her and her parents, and threatened to kill her family if she did not agree to a divorce. On the basis of these allegations, the present crime came to be registered.
4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the allegations in the complaint are false, vexatious, and malicious, and that the complaint was lodged only as a counterblast to Crime No.128 of 2024, which had earlier been registered at the instance of Petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 against Respondent No.2/de facto complainant and her family members.
4.2. It is submitted that Petitioner No.1 became acquainted with Respondent No.2 through Facebook in 2021 and was induced into the marriage by suppression of material facts relating to her previous marriage and the matrimonial proceedings arising therefrom. According to the petitioners, the parties first underwent a marriage ceremony at Dwaraka Tirumala Temple on 24.10.2021 and thereafter a Muslim marriage on 15.07.2022, while Respondent No.2 allegedly concealed the fact that her marriage with her first husband had not been legally dissolved.
4.3. It is further submitted that Petitioner No.1 transferred several lakhs of rupees to Respondent No.2 and her family and purchased gold ornaments worth approximately Rs.62 lakhs, which were entrusted to Respondent No.2. The petitioners allege that Respondent No.2 and her family members thereafter misappropriated the said amounts and ornaments after she left the matrimonial home.
4.4. Learned counsel submits that, pursuant to the complaint lodged by Petitioner No.1, Crime No.128 of 2024 was registered for offences including cheating, criminal breach of trust, and criminal intimidation. During the course of investigation, documents relating to Respondent No.2’s previous marriage, maintenance proceedings, criminal case against her first husband, and subsequent divorce were collected, which, according to the petitioners, revealed suppression of material facts by Respondent No.2.
4.5. It is contended that only thereafter, on 26.03.2024, Respondent No.2 lodged the present FIR with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance and frustrate the criminal proceedings initiated earlier by Petitioner No.1.
4.6. It is also contended that, notwithstanding the interim order passed by this Court staying all further proceedings in the crime, the Investigating Officer proceeded to file the charge sheet. According to the petitioners, such action amounts to contempt of the order of this Court and is liable to be dealt with in accordance with law.
5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that the impugned FIR does not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. It is submitted that, in view of the alleged invalidity of the marriage, Section 498-A of the IPC is inapplicable; that there is an unexplained delay of nearly five months in lodging the complaint; that there is no specific allegation of entrustment and dishonest misappropriation so as to attract Section 406 of the IPC; that the allegations under Section 324 of the IPC are vague and unsupported by medical evidence; and that the ingredients of Section 506 of the IPC are absent in the absence of any specific overt act constituting criminal intimidation.
5.2. It is further submitted that the allegations relating to dowry demand do not disclose any specific demand so as to attract Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act. As against Accused Nos.2 to 7, it is contended that no specific overt acts have been attributed to them. In support of these contentions, learned counsel places reliance on Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC 735, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that vague and omnibus allegations against the relatives of the husband, without specific attribution of overt acts, are insufficient to sustain prosecution under Section 498-A of the IPC. Learned counsel also relies upon State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, and contends that criminal proceedings instituted with a mala fide intention to wreak vengeance are liable to be quashed.
6.1. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 opposed the petition, contending that the prayer for quashing is misconceived and does not satisfy the parameters governing the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC. It is submitted that Petitioner No.1 was fully aware of Respondent No.2’s previous marriage, as he had himself initiated contact with her through Facebook, developed a relationship with her, and voluntarily married her first at Dwaraka Tirumala Temple and thereafter, following her divorce and without violation of the Iddat period, under Muslim rites on 15.08.2022.
6.2. It is further submitted that, after the marriage, the parties resided at Mangalagiri and subsequently at Hyderabad, where Petitioner No.1 commenced a hostel business after receiving a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- from the parents of the de facto complainant. Learned counsel contended that Petitioner No.1 subjected Respondent No.2 to dowry harassment, physical and mental cruelty, criminal intimidation, and assault, besides maintaining an illicit relationship.
6.3. It is submitted that Crime No.128 of 2024 was falsely instituted only to pressurise Respondent No.2, whereas the present FIR is based on independent acts of cruelty committed during the subsistence of the matrimonial relationship. It is further contended that the allegations are supported by medical records and WhatsApp chats, and that the delay in lodging the complaint was occasioned by efforts made by elders to reconcile the parties. Learned counsel submits that the FIR discloses the ingredients of the offences alleged.
6.4. Lastly, learned counsel submits that the petition involves disputed questions of fact, which cannot appropriately be examined in proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC and are matters to be adjudicated at trial.
7.1. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, relying upon the counter-affidavit of the Investigating Officer, submits that the crime was registered on the complaint of Respondent No.2, wherein allegations were made of dowry harassment, cruelty, physical assault, criminal intimidation, forcible administration of birth-control pills resulting in miscarriage, an illicit relationship maintained by Accused No.1, an attempted sexual assault by the father-in-law, and forcible dispossession of the complainant from the matrimonial home after taking away her jewellery and mobile phone.
7.2. It is further submitted that, upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed. He explains that, although this Court granted an interim stay on 19.07.2024, the order was uploaded only on 22.07.2024 and was not communicated to the Investigating Officer before the filing of the charge sheet. Consequently, the charge sheet was filed without the knowledge of the interim order and not in wilful disobedience thereof.
7.3. The Investigating Officer has tendered an unconditional apology for the inadvertent lapse and assured the Court that such an omission would not recur. It is therefore submitted that the FIR discloses cognizable offences warranting prosecution and that the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. I have carefully considered the submissions and perused the material available on record.
9. At the stage of considering a petition for quashing, this Court is not expected to embark upon an appreciation of the truthfulness or otherwise of the rival allegations or to conduct a mini-trial. The scope of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC is well settled. The Court is required to examine whether the averments contained in the FIR and the materials collected during the investigation, if taken at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence or whether the proceedings fall within any of the exceptional categories warranting interference. It is equally well settled that the existence of a counter-case or the fact that the dispute arises out of matrimonial differences, by itself, is not a ground to quash criminal proceedings when the complaint otherwise discloses the ingredients of a cognizable offence. (See: M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401; Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2021 SC 931).
10. In the instant case, the FIR contains specific allegations against Accused No.1 relating to demand for dowry, physical and mental cruelty, assault, criminal intimidation, forcible administration of contraceptive pills resulting in miscarriage, an illicit relationship, forcible dispossession from the matrimonial home, and other acts constituting matrimonial cruelty. The Investigating Officer has also completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet.
11. The defence sought to be projected by the petitioners, namely, suppression of the complainant’s previous marriage, alleged invalidity of the marriage, pendency of the crime allegedly lodged as a counterblast, delay in lodging the complaint, and falsity of the allegations, raises disputed questions of fact requiring appreciation of evidence. Such questions cannot ordinarily be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
12. However, insofar as Accused Nos.2 to 7 are concerned, a closer scrutiny of the allegations reveals that no distinct overt acts have been attributed to any of them individually. It is well settled that mere omnibus and sweeping allegations against the relatives of the husband, without disclosing their individual roles, are insufficient to sustain criminal prosecution under Section 498-A of the IPC. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned against the tendency to implicate family members in matrimonial disputes and has held that continuation of proceedings against such relatives, in the absence of specific allegations, would amount to an abuse of the process of law. (See: Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599; Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741; Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, (supra); Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667).
13. Insofar as the submission regarding the filing of the charge sheet despite the interim stay is concerned, the affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer explains that the charge sheet had been presented before the interim order passed by this Court was communicated to the Investigating Officer and uploaded, and that the filing was neither deliberate nor wilful. The Investigating Officer has tendered an unconditional apology. In the absence of material indicating conscious and intentional disobedience of the order of this Court, such conduct would not ordinarily attract contempt jurisdiction, as wilful and deliberate disobedience is a sine qua non for civil contempt.
14. Learned counsel, further relying upon Siler Celir LLP v. Sumati Prasad Bafna & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3727, contends that contempt jurisdiction is attracted only in cases of wilful and deliberate disobedience of an order of the Court, whereas non-compliance attributable to lack of knowledge, a bona fide mistake, or any other inadvertent circumstance would not ordinarily constitute such disobedience. It is, therefore, contended that continuation of the present proceedings against the Investigating Officer on that ground would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
15. Therefore, upon considering the allegations in the FIR and the material collected during the investigation, in juxtaposition with the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against each accused individually, this Court finds that the allegations against Accused Nos.2 to 7 are merely general and omnibus, without any specific role or overt act being attributed to them.
16. Insofar as Accused No.1 is concerned, the FIR contains specific allegations against him, and the investigation has culminated in the filing of a charge sheet. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that, insofar as Accused No.1 is concerned, the present case does not fall within any of the exceptional categories warranting exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC. The allegations contained in the FIR and the material collected during the investigation prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences, and the veracity of the allegations can be tested only during trial.
17. However, insofar as Accused Nos.2 to 7 are concerned, the allegations are wholly general and omnibus and are bereft of any specific attribution of overt acts or individual roles. Permitting the criminal prosecution to continue against them would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. In effect, the proceedings arising out of the subject crime and/or the charge sheet are hereby quashed insofar as Accused Nos.2 to 7 are concerned.
18. The petition, insofar as it relates to Accused No.1, stands dismissed. It is left open to the trial Court to proceed with the trial in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made in this order. The observations contained herein are confined solely to the adjudication of the present petition.
19. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed in part. The proceedings in F.I.R. No.96 of 2024 on the file of Women police station, West Zone, Hyderabad, insofar as the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 7 are concerned, hereby quashed. Insofar as petitioner No.1/accused No.1 is concerned, dismissed.
Consequently, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
