The main legal point established is that in cases of matrimonial disputes, the court should adopt a cautious approach and prevent over implication by involving the entire family of the accused, especially when the allegations are vague and omnibus in nature.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent and learned counsel representing the 2nd respondent.

2. The present Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 4477 of 2019 on the file of the Court of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, wherein the petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.3 and 4.

3. The petitioners are facing trial for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 354-A(2), 509 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The 1st petitioner herein/accused No. 3 is the mother of accused No. 1 and wife of accused No. 2. The 2nd petitioner herein/accused No. 4 is the sister of accused No. 1. The 2nd respondent herein lodged a complaint against her husband/accused No. 1, his father in law/accused No. 2 and the petitioners herein, wherein it was stated that her marriage was performed with accused No. 1 on 01.07.2018 at Hotel Green Park, Visakhapatnam and at the time of marriage, Rs.20,00,000/- was given along with gold worth Rs.20 Lakhs apart from silver and gold articles. It was alleged that she stayed with her husband/A1 for few days at Hyderabad and later set up their marital home at Bangalore and during their stay at Bangalore, she was subjected to cruelty both mentally and physically for additional dowry etc., and that her father-in-law used to behave inappropriately with her. It was further alleged that the petitioners herein used to ask the 2nd respondent to do all the household chores and blame that she is not capable of doing properly even before the task is completed and hurl abuses touching 2nd respondent’s sentiments and curse her parents for no reason, that the accused used to abuse her in un-parliamentary language and raise demand for additional dowry and unceremoniously necked her out. The police after investigation filed a Charge Sheet against the accused including the petitioners herein, the cognizance of which was taken by the learned Magistrate in the proceedings under challenge.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated in the crime. She submits that except making vague and omnibus allegations, no specific overt acts have been attributed to the petitioners herein, which would attract the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners. The learned counsel while placing a copy of the order passed by the Judge, Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam in F.C.O.P. No. 96 of 2020 dated 29.03.2022 submits that a decree for divorce is granted dissolving the marriage of the 2nd respondent with her husband/accused No. 1 and the 2nd respondent is no longer interested in pursuing the proceedings which are sought to be quashed. She also places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in Geeta Mehrotra and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 741 and Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, AIR 2022 SC 820 and seeks to allow the petition as prayed for.

5. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that in view of the serious nature of the allegations, it is a matter for trial and there are no merits warranting interference in the matter by this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent while supporting the contentions advanced by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor prays for dismissal of the Criminal Petition.

7. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. As seen from the complaint and the Charge Sheet, the allegations which are serious in nature have been made against the accused Nos.1 and 2, but so far as the other accused/petitioners herein are concerned, no specific overtacts have been attributed to them and on the basis of vague allegations, this Court is of the considered opinion that no c