Vague allegations in matrimonial disputes do not justify criminal proceedings against relatives; specific instances of involvement are required.

ORDER :

The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, [for short ‘Cr.P.C’] has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.4 seeking quashment of the proceedings against her in C.C.No.898 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class Trying Prohibition and Excise Act Cases, Machilipatnam for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, [for short ‘IPC’] and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, [for short ‘D.P.Act’].

2. Heard Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri S.M.Subhani, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri S.Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1/State.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner/Accused No.4 is the unmarried sister of the husband of Respondent No.2. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the marriage between Accused No.1 and Respondent No.2 had taken place on 05.12.2020 and the Petitioner, who was pursuing her studies at Canada, came to India to attend the marriage and again left for Canada on 16.12.2020, whereas, the present case has been registered on 19.05.2022. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that, even as per the contents of the compliant, after the marriage, Accused No.1 stayed with Respondent No.2 for a period of two months only and thereafter, he left for Canada and Respondent No.2 stayed with her in-laws for 1 ½ months. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that, the jewellary of Respondent No.2 was kept in the Bank account of her month-in-law. There are no specific allegations against the Petitioner/Accused No.4 for the commission of the alleged offences. Since the Petitioner is unmarried and her marriage prospects may be affected because of the present case. Learned counsel would finally submit that the entire allegations made in the complaint are bald and omnibus. As such, continuation of proceedings against her is an abuse of process of law. In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs. State of Bihar & Others, [(2022) 6 SCC 599], Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another, [(2010) 7 SCC 667] and Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083].

4. Per contra, while reiterating the averments of the counter and additional counter filed on behalf of Respondent No.2, learned counsel for Respondent No.2, would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioner for the commission of the alleged offences. Learned counsel would further submit that, even after the Petitioner reached Canada, she used to reside with Accused No.1, who was working at Toronto, Canada. Learned counsel would submit that the Petitioner shared the Twitter tweets posted by the husband of Respondent No.2 in her Instagram and after filing of the alleged tweets into the Court, the Petitioner closed her Instagram account. Learned counsel would further submit that on the tweets posted by Accused No.1 over social media tagging various media channels i.e., TV 9 Telugu, Sakshi TV, NDTV, Times of India, TV5, V6 News, NTV Telugu and also tagging to the Prime Minister’s Office, the public had made comments on the same and the same were shared by the Petitioner herein through social media and thereby harassed Respondent No.2 by defaming her reputation and by character assassination. There are abusive words in the said posts. T