The absence of specific allegations against a distant relative implicated in dowry-related offences warrants quashment of proceedings as it constitutes an abuse of the legal process.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.8014 of 2020 on the file of the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 4 98(A), 506 and 406 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short ‘DP Act’).

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief is that on 08.08.2019, the de-facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that her marriage with accused No.1 was solemnised on 26.11.2018. At the time of marriage, accused No.1 and the other accused allegedly demanded Rs.10 lakhs, 12 tulas of gold, and household articles as dowry. However, her parents gave Rs.5 lakhs, 12 tulas of gold, and household articles, including electronic items. She further stated that she was treated well for about three months and thereafter subjected to mental and physical harassment for an additional dowry of Rs.5 lakhs. When she failed to meet this demand, she was beaten and abused by her husband and in-laws. On 11.03.2019, she was driven out of her matrimonial home, and when her brother came to take her, he was beaten with slippers. She lodged a complaint at WPS, Begumpet, on 30.04.2019, and counselling was conducted on 20.05.2019, during which the accused agreed to take her back after Ramzan, i.e., on 11.06.2019. However, they did not turn up. On 20.06.2019, a relative of her husband allegedly called her and made abusive and false allegations, including imputations of an illicit relationship with her brother. She also stated that her 12 tulas of gold and household articles are still in the custody of her husband and in-laws. Based on her complaint, Crime No.178 of 2019 was registered. After conducting investigation, the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet before the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, and said Court has taken cognizance and numbered the case as C.C.No.8014 of 2020.

3. Heard Mr.M.A.Mujeeb, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.

4. There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2/de-facto complainant, either in physical mode or virtual mode.

5. Though the Criminal Petition was filed seeking quashment of the proceedings against petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5, learned counsel confined his prayer to quashing the proceedings insofar as petitioner No.4/accused No.4 is concerned and not pressed the criminal petiton against petitioner Nos.1 to 3 and 5/accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner No.4/accused No.4 has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint and charge sheet, the ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out against petitioner No.4/accused No.4. He further submitted that LWs.5 and 6, who are independent witnesses, specifically stated in their statements that petitioner No.4/accused No.4 had no involvement in the disputes between petitioner No.1/accused No.1 and respondent No.2/de-facto complainant. He further submitted that petitioner No.4/accused No.4 is the own brother of petitioner No.1/accused No.1 and is eking out his livelihood through private employment, and he has never resided with petitioner No.1/accused No.1 and respondent No.2/de-facto complainant. He further submitted that respondent No.2 has implicated all the family members of petitioner No.1/accused No. 1 with an intention t