Vague allegations in matrimonial disputes without specific accusations cannot sustain prosecution under dowry laws, preventing misuse of legal provisions.

ORDER :

JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J.

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners-accused Nos.5 to 9 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.245 of 2021 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge at Alampur, pertaining to Crime No.52 of 2021 of P.S. Undavelly, registered for the offences 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 ‘the Act’).

2. Heard Sri N.Krishna Sumanth, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. No representation on behalf of respondent No.2. Perused the record.

3. The petitioners-accused Nos.5 and 7 are the sisters of accused No.1. The petitioner-accused No.6 is the husband of petitioner-accused No.5. The petitioner-accused No.8 is the wife of petitioner-accused No.9. The petitioner-accused No.9 is the maternal uncle of accused No.1.

4. The gist of the complaint is that the 2^nd respondent-de facto complainant was married to accused No.1 on 16.11.2016 and it was an arranged marriage. It is the case of the de facto complainant that when she along with accused No.1 went to the house of petitioner-accused No.5 for Shivaratri Festival, she questioned the family members of accused No.1 regarding his illegal relationship with another lady. Then, all the accused, including the petitioners herein, abused her in filthy language; harassed her stating that accused No.1 is a Government Employee; the marriage was not performed to their standards and also demanded her to bring additional dowry. Finally, on 27.12.2019, all the accused beat her and necked her out of the matrimonial home.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that the present case has been registered against the petitioners-accused Nos.5 to 9 only to wreck vengeance in view of the matrimonial disputes between the de facto complainant and accused No.1. It is contended that the petitioners herein are staying away from the de facto complainant and accused No.1, therefore, there was no occasion or necessity for them to harass the de facto complainant. Moreover, the petitioners- accused Nos.8 and 9 are the distant relatives of accused No.1. It is further contended that the present complaint has been filed in 2021, whereas, the marriage of de facto complainant with accused No.1 was performed in 2016 and if there was really harassment from the date of marriage, the de facto complainant should have complained much earlier. It is further contended that in his reply to the legal notice issued by the de facto complainant, accused No.1 denied the de facto complainant visiting the house of petitioner-accused No.5 for Shivaratri Festival and stated that she is pursuing her B.Com. by staying at her parents’ house. Hence, the alleged incident of accused harassing the de facto complainant does not arise and the same is false. It is also contended that except bald allegations against them, no specific overt acts are attributed to them.

6. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand , [(2010) 7 SCC 667] , wherein, at paragraph No.33, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:

33. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely carefu