1. This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) by the petitioners, who were arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 4, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C. No.160 of 2019 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad.

2. Heard Mr.K.B.Ramanna Dora, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State and Mrs.V.Ramani, learned party-in-person/respondent No.2.

3. Brief facts of the case:

               3.1 That on 26.02.2018, respondent No.2, lodged a complaint wherein she stated that her marriage was solemnized with petitioner No.1 on 24.08.2008 and she bore all the marriage and jewellery expenses amounting to about Rs.5 lakhs. After marriage, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 avoided meeting the couple and later demanded dowry, and respondent No.2 stated that under threats of divorce from petitioner No.1, she paid Rs.10 lakhs and faced continuous physical and mental harassment. She further stated that she was forced to undergo an abortion in the year 2009, and during the marriage of petitioner No.4 in the year 2014, she gave her gold waist belt worth Rs.7 lakhs, which was not returned, and petitioner No.3 assaulted her by holding her throat and demanding her to give divorce to petitioner No.1. Respondent No.2 later accompanied petitioner No.1 to Dubai, where the harassment continued. In February 2018, petitioner No.1 came to Hyderabad, demanded dowry or property, and then went missing, prompting her to lodge a missing complaint; after petitioner No.1 was traced, petitioner Nos.1 to 4 abused and threatened her with life harm at the police station, if she did not agree to divorce, and petitioner No.1 later left for Dubai without any intimation. Basing on the said complaint, FIR No. 96 of 2018 was registered, and after conducting investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a final report before the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad and the said Court taken cognizance of the same and numbered as C.C. No. 160 of 2019.

4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners:

               4.1 Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that during the pendency of this Criminal Petition, petitioner No.4 namely Meka Satish died. By virtue of the same, this Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed as abated against him and the said submission has not disputed by respondent No.2. In view of the same, this Criminal Petition is dismissed as abated against petitioner No.4/accused No.4.

               4.2 He further submitted that the petitioners never harassed respondent No.2 and demanded dowry and respondent No.2 implicated the petitioners as accused Nos.1 to 4 only with an intention to harass them on one pretext or the other. There are no specific allegations about the demand of additional dowry and harassment. He further submitted that the marriage of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 24.08.2008 and the same is a love marriage, which took place without consent of petitioner Nos.2 and 3. Since their marriage, they are living separately and left to Dubai in the year 2014 and respondent No.2 never lived along with petitioner Nos.2 and 3. Respondent No.2 came back to India in the year 2017 and lodged the complaint on 26.02.2018. The entire allegations levelled against petitioner No.1 have taken place at Dubai. However, respondent No.2 implicated petitioner Nos.2 and 3, who are the parents of petitioner No.1, by making omnibus allegations. Even according to the allegations made either in the complaint or in the charge sheet, the ingredients for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC do not attract.

               4.3 He also submitted that the Investigating Officer filed a final report basing upon the statements of LWs.1 and 2, who are respondent No.2 and her mother, and LWs.3 and 4, who are also close relatives and friends of respondent No.2 only, and no independent witnesses were examined and their evidence cannot be taken into consideration. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint and charge sheet, the ingredients for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC do not attract. Hence, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse of the process of law.

               4.4 In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments;

               i) Geddam Jhansi v. The State of Telangana and another (2025 INSC 160); and

               ii) Kahkashan Kausar Alias Sonam and others v. State of Bihar and others ((2022) 6 SCC 599).

5. Submissions of learned respondent No.2/party-in-person:

               5.1 Learned party-in-person submitted that there are specific allegations levelled against petitioner Nos.1 to 3 about their physical and mental harassment against her and the ingredients for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC would attract against them. The Investigating Officer after recording the statements of the witnesses filed final report and in the said final report, the role of the each petitioner is clearly mentioned. She further submitted that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have also lived along with them, and petitioner No.1 harassed her and received the amounts from her on several times and he transferred the said amounts to the accounts of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and there are monetary transactions between petitioner No.1 to petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and the said money belongs to her only.

               5.2 She further submitted that petitioner No.1 has made serious allegations against her that she is having extra marital affair and the same was disbelieved in M.C.No.165 of 2018. Respondent No.2 came to India on 06.09.2017 for renewal of her passport. However, petitioner No.1 has made false allegation of adultery against her. She further submitted that petitioner No.1 demanded her to give mutual consent divorce and when she refused for the same, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have also demanded and harassed her to give divorce to petitioner No.1.

               5.3 She further submitted that there are specific allegations levelled against petitioner No.3 that her brother-in-law/accused No.4 got married in the year 2014 and on his reception day, she gave her gold waist belt (vaddanam) worth Rs.7 lakhs to her in-laws as her sister-in-law does not have a gold waist belt. When she demanded petitioner No.1 to settle the case (about his threatening of divorce for dowry and properties) in front of all relatives, petitioner No.3, who is her mother-in-law, caught hold her throat and shouted in front of relatives that her son/petitioner No.1 will give divorce and also petitioner Nos.1 to 3 abused her in filthy language and threatened her that if she will not consent for divorce. Thus, there are specific allegations levelled against all the petitioners and that has to be decided by the trial Court after full-fledged trial only, and the same cannot be adjudicated in the present Criminal Petition, as the scope of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is very limited.

               5.4 She also submitted that the petitioners have approached this Court and filed Criminal Petition No.9690 of 2025 aggrieved by the docket order, dated 01.07.2025, passed by the trial Court in C.C. No.160 of 2019, however, the petitioners restricted their prayer for direction to the Court below to expedite disposal of the matter. Basing on the request of the petitioners, this Court while disposing the said Criminal Petition on 31.07.2025 directed the trial Court to decide the C.C. No.160 of 2019 as early as possible preferably within a period of nine (9) months from the date of next adjournment and the pendency of the present Criminal Petition was not brought to the notice of this Court in the above said Criminal Petition. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings.

               5.5 In support of her contention, she relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Muskan v. Ishaan Khan (Sataniya) and others (2025 INSC 1287).

Analysis:

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that petitioner No.1 marriage was solemnized with respondent No.2 on 24.08.2008. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint and the charge sheet, it reveals that petitioner No.1 is doing employment at Dubai and respondent No.2 joined petitioner No.1 at Dubai in the year 2014 and returned to India in the year 2017. According to respondent No.2, she came back to India for the purpose of renewal of her passport.

7. The core contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 is love marriage and at no point of time, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have lived with them. All the allegations levelled in the complaint and final report pertains to the incident which occurred in Dubai only. Respondent No.2 implicated petitioner Nos.2 and 3 as accused Nos.2 and 3 only on the ground that they are parents of petitioner No.1 and made omnibus allegations. Whereas the specific case of respondent No.2 is that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have lived along with her and petitioner No.1, they also harassed her for additional dowry and also put a pressure to give divorce to petitioner No.1 and there is a conspiracy between petitioner Nos.1 to 3.

8. After perusal of the complaint and final report, it reveals that there are allegations against petitioner No.1 as well as petitioner Nos.2 and 3 about the harassment made against respondent No.2 and also there are specific allegations against petitioner No.3, that she abused respondent No.2 on the date of reception of petitioner No.4 in front of relatives and also caught hold her throat and shouted on her and demanded her to give divorce to petitioner No.1, and subsequently, she also abused respondent No.2. In respect of petitioner No.2 also, there are allegations against him that he also abused respondent No.2 and threatened her to give divorce to petitioner No.1. The allegations made in the final report prima facie attract the ingredients for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC. Whether the allegations made in the complaint and in the charge sheet against petitioners are true or not, has to be revealed after full-fledged trial, basing upon the evidence going to be adduced by the prosecution and the same cannot be adjudicated in this quash petition.

9. In Kahkashan Kausar supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that although Section 498-A IPC was enacted to address genuine instances of cruelty within marriage, there has been a growing tendency to misuse this provision by implicating the husband’s relatives on the basis of vague, general, and omnibus allegations without any specific role being attributed to them. The Court cautioned that such unfounded allegations, if left unchecked, amount to an abuse of process, and Courts must therefore exercise circumspection before proceeding against in-laws when no prima facie case is disclosed. In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that the FIR contained only broad accusations against the relatives, with no distinct acts attributed to them, and hence, the prosecution against them was held to be unwarranted. Similarly, in Geddam Jhansi supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court found that the allegations against the husband’s aunt and cousin were purely general in nature, unsupported by any specific overt acts, and further weakened by the fact that they were residing separately from the matrimonial home. In the absence of concrete allegations, their implication as co-accused was held to be untenable.

10. The above said judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners may not come to the aid of the petitioners on the ground that there are specific, distinct, and repeated allegations levelled against petitioner No.1 and petitioner Nos.2 and 3, including verbal abuse, physical assault, threats to compel divorce, and acts said to have occurred in the presence of relatives. These are not general allegations made merely because they are parents of petitioner No.1, rather, they relate to particular incidents attributed to them. The petitioner Nos.2 and 3’s claim that this is a case of roping in-laws on account of a matrimonial dispute is, therefore, untenable. Since the allegations prima facie disclose their individual involvement and require adjudication during the trial, the principles laid down in the above said judgments do not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

11. In Muskan supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has set aside the High Court’s order quashing an FIR under Section 498-A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act and held that, at the stage of considering a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the High Court cannot conduct a mini-trial by examining inconsistencies between earlier complaints and the FIR, and must only see whether the allegations, taken at face value, disclose a prima facie case. As the FIR and prior complaints in that case contained specific allegations of cruelty and dowry demand, the Court concluded that the proceedings could not be quashed at the threshold.

12. The principles laid down in Muskan supra, support the stand of respondent No.2 in the present matter. In the present case, the complaint and the final report contain specific, detailed allegations of harassment, threats, and cruelty attributed to the petitioners, which cannot be brushed aside at the stage of quashing. In view of these clear and particular allegations, the present case does not fall within the limited category of matters where inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be exercised, and the proceedings cannot be terminated prematurely.

13. It is not in dispute that earlier the petitioners had approached this Court and filed Criminal Petition No.9690 of 2025 seeking to quash of the Docket Order, dated 01.07.2025, passed by the trial Court in C.C.No.160 of 2019, wherein the petitioners have requested this Court to issue direction to the trial Court for expeditious disposal of C.C.No.160 of 2019. Basing on the said request, this Court disposed of the above Criminal Petition directing the trial Court to decide the C.C. No.160 of 2019 as early as possible preferably within a period of nine (9) months from the date of next adjournment by its order dated 31.07.2025.

14. It is already stated supra, there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioners in the complaint as well as final report about the harassment made against respondent No.2 including verbal abuse, physical assault and threatening to give divorce and the role of each petitioner was specifically mentioned in the final report.

15. It is relevant to mention that in Sau. Kamala Shivaji Pokarnekar v. The State of Maharashtra & Others ((2019) 14 SCC 350), supra, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised in exceptional cases sparingly, with caution, only to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice; and it cannot be invoked to weigh evidence or stifle a genuine prosecution, but may be applied where the allegations in the complaint, taken at face value, do not disclose the basic ingredients of any offence. The case on hand is not the rarest of rare cases to exercise powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.160 of 2019.

16. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any ground to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.160 of 2019 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad against the petitioner Nos.1 to 3/accused Nos.1 to 3.

17. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. However, taking into consideration the peculiar circumstances of the case, the presence of petitioner Nos.1 to 3/accused Nos.1 to 3, in C.C.No.160 of 2019 is dispensed with, unless their presence is specifically required during the course of trial, subject to the condition that the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 shall represent through their counsel on each and every date of hearing. In case of non- appearance of the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 on the specific date so fixed by the trial Court for their appearance, the trial Court is entitled to proceed with the matter, in accordance with law. It is made clear that any of the observations made in this order are only confined for the purpose of deciding this case.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this petition stand losed.