01. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 6 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.1242 of 2024 on the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Manoranjan Complex, Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘the Act’).

02. Heard Sri V.Srinivasulu, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri P.Vikram Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri R.Ranganathan, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1. Perused the record.

03. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the petitioner-accused No.1 and the respondent No.2 was solemnized on 20.06.2019. It is alleged that ever since the marriage, the petitioner-accused Nos.1 to 6 have subjected the respondent No.2 to physical and mental cruelty in connection with their unlawful demand for additional dowry. It is further alleged that the accused No.1 is not fit for family life and used to postpone physical relations on one pretext or another. It is alleged that due to the unbearable harassment by the petitioners, respondent No.2 went to her parents’ house and stayed there for two months. It is further alleged that on 10.02.2020, respondent No.2 received a phone call from accused No.1, who directed her to join him and threatened that if she failed to do so, she would be dragged onto the street. Consequently, she returned to her in-laws’ house, but again the petitioners allegedly harassed her both mentally and physically. It is further alleged that accused No.1 married respondent No.2 only for societal appearance and not for leading a proper marital life, and that he has been maintaining an illicit relationship with his cousin, Mekala Saritha. Based on these allegations, respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint alleging offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, and 506 of the IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners have no involvement whatsoever in the alleged offences and that they never subjected respondent No.2 to any form of harassment. It is submitted that the petitioner-accused No.1 is the husband, the petitioner-accused No.2 is the mother-in-law, the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 5 are the sisters-in-laws of the respondent No.2, and petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 6 are the husbands of petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 5. It is further submitted that petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 6 never harassed respondent No.2, and that petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 never interfered in the matrimonial affairs between respondent No.2 and petitioner-accused No.1. It is contended that the petitioners have never made any demand for dowry from respondent No.2 and that there are no specific or substantive allegations against them. It is further submitted that the contents of the complaint and the charge sheet do not disclose the essential ingredients necessary to constitute the alleged offences. It is also contended that, on one hand, respondent No.2 alleged that petitioner-accused No.1 is not fit for family life, and on the other hand, she alleged that accused No.1 is having an illegal relationship with his cousin, which itself clearly indicates that the present complaint has been filed with vague allegations. Hence, learned counsel prayed for quashing the proceedings against petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 6.

05. With the above submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 6 while praying for the quashment of criminal proceedings relied upon a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State of Telangana and another (AIR 2025 SUPREME COURT 173) wherein the Honourable Supreme Court of India at Paragraph Nos.18, 24, 25, 28, 29, 31 & 32 held that:

                  “18. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that appellant No.1 harassed her and that appellant Nos.2 to 6 instigated him to do so, respondent No.2 has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment. She has also not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations.

                  24. Insofar as appellant Nos.2 to 6 are concerned, we find that they have no connection to the matter at hand and have been dragged into the web of crime without any rhyme or reason. A perusal of the FIR would indicate that no substantial and specific allegations have been made against appellant Nos.2 to 6 other than stating that they used to instigate appellant No.1 for demanding more dowry. It is also an admitted fact that they never resided with the couple namely appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 and their children. Appellant Nos.2 and 3 resided together at Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh. Appellant Nos. 4 to 6 live in Nellore, Bengaluru and Guntur respectively.

                  25. 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-recognised 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 particularised 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. In the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the family of appellant No.1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them.

                  28. The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498A of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them.

                  29. We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated under Section 498A of the IPC should remain silent and forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. That is not the intention of our aforesaid observations but we should not encourage a case like as in the present one, where as a counterblast to the petition for dissolution of marriage sought by the first appellant-husband of the second respondent herein, a complaint under Section 498A of the IPC is lodged by the latter. In fact, the insertion of the said provision is meant mainly for the protection of a woman who is subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home primarily due to an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security in the form of dowry. However, sometimes it is misused as in the present case.

                  31. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 held that the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realties into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment by the husband’s close relatives who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.

                  32. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FIR No.82 of 2022 filed by respondent No.2 was initiated with ulterior motives to settle personal scores and grudges against appellant No.1 and his family members i.e., appellant Nos.2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present case at hand falls within category (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lal. Therefore, the High Court, in the present case, erred in not exercising the powers available to it under Section 482 CrPC and thereby, failed to prevent abuse of the Court’s process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants.”

06. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1 as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners, which are triable issues. The truth or otherwise would come out only after conducting trial by the concerned Court and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition.

07. A bare perusal of the contents of the charge sheet discloses that the petitioner-accused No.1 is the husband, the petitioner-accused No.2 is the mother-in-law aged about 74 years, the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 5 are the sisters-in-law of the respondent No.2 and the petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 6 are the husbands of the petitioner-accused Nos.3 and 5 respectively. Though the charge sheet alleges that the petitioners demanded additional dowry, it does not specify or quantify the alleged demand, nor does it furnish any particulars as to the nature or extent of such alleged demand.

08. On a careful scrutiny of the entire material on record, it is evident that certain allegations have been made to the effect that the petitioner-accused No.1 is unfit for family life, that he used to postpone marital intercourse on a weekly basis, that he allegedly maintained an illicit relationship with his cousin, and that he subjected the respondent No.2 to physical and mental harassment and also threatened her. It is further evident that the petitioner-accused No.2 is an old aged mother, and the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 5 are the married sisters of the accused No.1, while the petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 6 are their respective husbands, all of whom reside separately with their families. However, the charge sheet is bereft of any specific details or descriptive particulars of the alleged acts of harassment attributed to the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6, and does not disclose any overt acts constituting their involvement. The overall tenor of the allegations indicates that the respondent No.2 is primarily aggrieved by the conduct of the petitioner-accused No.1.

09. Upon a careful scrutiny of the averments in the charge sheet, it is evident that, in order to substantiate the allegations levelled therein, the police have examined a total of five witnesses. Out of them, three are the respondent No.2 and her close relatives, who are admittedly interested witnesses; one witness though shown as an independent witness, appears to be only a hearsay witness; and the remaining witness is the Investigating Officer.

10. Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498-A of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Therefore, the Courts are bound to ensure whether there is any prima facie case against the husband and his family members before prosecuting them. Hence, the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them.

11. Except for the bald and omnibus allegations, no substantial or specific allegations have been made against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6. The charge sheet does not attribute even a single definite instance of cruelty, harassment, or any specific demand for dowry to the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6. In the absence of any cogent material or particularized allegations constituting cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry, subjecting the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 to the rigours of trial would be wholly unjustified and would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

12. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case including the settled principle of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the above decision, this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 amounts to abuse of process of law, therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 are liable to be quashed.

13. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is partly allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 in C.C.No.1242 of 2024 on the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Manoranjan Complex, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.

14. Insofar as the petitioner-accused No.1 is concerned, the learned trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made in this Order, and to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible. However, the personal appearance of the petitioner-accused No.1 before the learned trial Court shall stand dispensed with, except when his presence is specifically required during the course of the trial, subject to the condition that he shall be duly represented by his learned counsel on each and every date of hearing.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.