Courts must ensure specific allegations are present to support charges against accused in matrimonial disputes, preventing misuse of legal processes.

ORDER :

JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J.

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.3 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.775 of 2021 on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Jagtial. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 4 98-A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short ‘IPC’) and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘the Act’).

02. Heard Sri Karam Chendu Komireddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1. No representation on behalf of the unofficial respondent No.2.

Perused the record.

03. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage of the accused No.1 with the respondent No.2 was solemnized on 03.06.2017. They lived happily for a period of two months. The accused No.1 with the instigation of the accused Nos.2 to 5 started harassing her physically and mentally by additional demanding and necked out the respondent No.2 from matrimonial house. Hence, the respondent No.2 filed the present case for the alleged offences.

04. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is nothing to do with the alleged offences and that he never harassed the respondent No.2. The petitioner-accused No.3 is the parental uncle of the accused No.1. The petitioner- accused No.3 is aged about 56 years and residing at Dubai. The petitioner-accused No.3 never resided at matrimonial home or interfered in the matrimonial issues of the respondent No.2 and the accused No.1. There is no allegation of demand of dowry against the petitioner-accused No.3. There are no specific allegations against the petitioner-accused No.3. The contents of the complaint or charge sheet do not disclose the required ingredients to attract the offences under Sections 4 98- A of IPC and 4 of the Act. Hence, he prayed to quash criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.3.

05. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioner, 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.

06. A bare perusal of the contents of the charge sheet discloses that most of the allegations are levelled against the accused No.1. The petitioner-accused No.3 was living separately from the accused No.1 and the respondent No.2, at Dubai and he was no way connected with the matrimonial issues of the accused No.1 and respondent No.2. It appears that the present complaint was lodged with vague and omnibus allegations. The petitioner-accused No.3 never resided in the matrimonial home or interfered with the matrimonial issues of the accused No.1 and the respondent No.2. There are no specific details or descriptive particulars of instances of physical or mental harassment caused by the petitioner- accused No.3. In the entire contents of the charge sheet, there is no whisper with regard to the criminality on the part of the petitioner-accused No.3. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form basis for criminal prosecution.

07. 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, 25 & 31 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