IMPORTANT POINT
In criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial matters, general, vague and omnibus allegations and mere casual reference of names of relatives of husband cannot be taken into account to sustain accusations.

ORDER

The instant criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by the Petitioners/A1 to A4 in C.C.No.4148 of 2019 on the file of I Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Visakhapatnam seeking quashment of the case against them for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of D.P. Act.

2. Heard Ms. K.Kokila, learned counsel representing Ms. Vinodin Ruth Madapalli, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. Though notice is served on the respondent No.2, they did not turn up.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners herein are A1 to A4. Accused No.1 is the husband of the respondent No.2/de facto complainant. A2 and A3 are the mother and father of the Accused No.1 respectively. Accused No.4 is the married sister of the Accused No.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that except vague and omnibus allegations, nothing is attributed against the Petitioners in specific to attract either 498-A of IPC or Sections 3 & 4 of D.P.Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the Respondent No.2 stayed with Accused Nos. 2 to 4 for two (2) days. The respondent No.2 has filed a petition for divorce in Visakhapatnam. Later, it was withdrawn. The respondent No.2 filed a petition seeking divorce before Family Court, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh and obtained divorce on 29.06.2024. The marriage of Accused No.1 and the respondent No.2 took place on 06.07.2018 and the couple were not blessed with any child out of wedlock. Within couple of months, respondent No.2 started living separately. Learned counsel would further submit that the Accused No.3 who is the father of the Accused No.1 has retired from BARC (Baba Atomic Research Center) and his retirement benefits are stalled due to the present case. The present case is lodged on 17.05.2019 by making allegations that the petitioners harassed her for additional dowry both physically and mentally. Learned counsel would further submit that the respondent No.2 stayed with A2 and A3 for six days from 14.07.2018 to 20.07.2018. Accused No.4 who is the married sister of Accused no.1 never stayed with either the petitioners or with respondent No.2 after the marriage of Accused No.1. She was married long back and at the time of the marriage of accused No.1, she had a small baby. She has attended the marriage and left to her matrimonial house along with in laws and relatives. Learned counsel would further submit that Accused No.4 a Software Engineer.

4. It is also submitted that at the time of marriage, Accused No.1 was posted at Arakkonam, INS Rajali. Initially, there was no quarters available to put up family. Later, he was allotted family quarters. Learned counsel would further submit that Accused No.1 met with a road accident on 22.08.2019 and underwent several surgeries. Though, she was informed, the respondent No.2 did not choose to attend him. Learned counsel would further submit that the respondent No.2 filed a VCOP.No.152 of 2020 seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the Code and FCOP.No.952 of 2021 seeking divorce. Learned counsel reiterated her arguments stating that she has obtained divorce on 29.06.2024. Learned counsel would further submit that the respondent No.2 has approached Accused No.1 seeking his assistance for obtaining divorce by mutual consent. Learned counsel would submit that the respondent No.2 never stayed with A2 to A4 and she left the matrimonial house on 25.08.2018 on the pretext of Raksha Bandan festival and did not choose to come back. Learned counsel would further submit that the Accused No.4 has lost her opportunity to work in U.K since her visa was rejected because of the pendency of the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that continuing criminal case against the petitioners is mere abuse of process o