Generalized allegations against family members under Section 498-A IPC without specific evidence are insufficient for prosecution, and can lead to abuse of legal processes.

ORDER :

JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J.

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 7 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.613 of 2022 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Siddipet. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Section 4 98-A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short ‘IPC’) and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘the Act’).

2. Heard Sri P.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 7, Sri D.Raghavulu, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the record.

3. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage of the accused No.1 with the respondent No.1 was solemnized about 12 years ago. During the wedlock she gave birth to a female child. Ever since the marriage of the 1^st respondent, her husband used to harass her physically and mentally and the petitioners herein instigated her husband. In that connection several panchayaths were held and in the panchayath her husband was reprimanded and inspite of it he did not mend his ways. It is also alleged that her parents took her to her in laws house, but he did not allow her to enter into the house and also abused her in filthy language. With the above allegations a report was given by the 1^st respondent before the Siddipet I Town police station and the case was registered as crime No.156 of 2022 for the offences under Section 4 98-A of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Act.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the petitioners are nothing to do with the alleged offences and that the allegations mentioned in the complaint and charge sheet do not make out a case against the petitioners under Section 4 98-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. There are no specific allegations against the petitioners herein with regard to harassment for additional dowry. Except stating that harassment of additional dowry, no specific instances were given and she has not even mentioned the additional dowry amount. Only bald and vague allegations are made against the petitioners. Further the accused No.1 and respondent No.1 are teachers working in different places living together and they are not continuously living with petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 who are parents of the accused. The petitioner-accused No.2 is the mother, the petitioner-accused No.3 is the father of the accused No.1, the petitioner-accused No.4 is sister of the accused No.1 and the petitioner-accused No.5 is husband of sister of accused No.1 and petitioner-accused No.6 is the paternal uncle of the accused No.1 and petitioner-accused No.7 is the wife of the uncle of the accused No.1 and they are residing separately from the petitioner-accused No.1 and respondent No.1. The petitioners- accused Nos.2 to 7 never interfered in the matrimonial issues of respondent No.1 and the accused No.1. The petitioners never demanded any dowry from respondent No.1 or from her parents. There are no specific allegations against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 7. 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 Section 4 of the Act.

5. While seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 7, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision in Preeti Gupta & Another v. State of Jharkhand & Another, [2010(6) Supreme 312], wherein the Honourable Supreme Court of India held at Paragraph Nos. 7, 11, 12, 27, 30 and 36 held that:

7. It w