The court established that vague allegations of dowry and cruelty do not constitute a prima facie case, warranting quashing of proceedings to prevent abuse of legal process.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the petitioner/accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.708 of 2020 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Mancherial, registered for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the D.P. Act’).

2. Brief facts of the case:

2.1. Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 26.10.2020 stating that her marriage was performed with the petitioner/Accused No.1, Masanpally Maheresh, on 14.12.2018, at TTD Tirumala, according to Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage, on demand of the petitioner and his parents, her parents provided 15 tulas of gold as dowry. After the marriage, she joined the matrimonial home at Hyderabad, where from the very first day, the petitioner, along with his parents, accused Nos.2 and 3, allegedly subjected her to cruelty, both physically and mentally, by demanding an additional dowry of Rs.20,00,000/-. Within fifteen days of the marriage, when the petitioner was leaving for Patna for his employment, he refused to take her with him stating that she must first bring the demanded additional dowry amount and serve his parents as a maid. Upon repeated requests, she was sent to Patna on 25.03.2019, but within a week, the petitioner quarreled with her and sent her back to her in-laws’ house.

2.2. It is further stated that the in-laws continued to harass her, denying food and making continuous demands for additional dowry. Thereafter, she was again sent to her husband in May 2019, but similar harassment continued. On 05.08.2019, she returned to her parents' house at Mancherial, and on 09.08.2019, when she went back to her in-laws' house, she was again abused for not bringing dowry. Despite her parents' efforts to reason with them, the demands persisted. Subsequently, the petitioner took her to Patna on 18.08.2019 and later returned to Hyderabad on 01.10.2019. A few days thereafter, he went abroad and informed her to stay with her parents. It is stated that she suffered fits due to stress on 24.10.2019 and was treated at SVS Neuro Hospital, Kachiguda. In November 2019, the petitioner is stated to have visited her and expressed his intention to divorce her on the ground that she was suffering from fits. Despite her parents’ clarifying that she was never ill before marriage, the petitioner refused to take her back. On several occasions, the petitioner and his parents harassed and drove her out of the matrimonial home demanding additional dowry. Each time, her parents tried to send her back, but she was repeatedly sent away. On 18.07.2020, the petitioner took her to her parental home at Mancherial, promising to look after her properly and to reside in Hyderabad. However, after staying with her for about twenty-five days, he left for Mumbai for an interview and did not return and his mobile phone remained switched off thereafter. When she and her parents contacted her in-laws, they disclaimed any knowledge of his whereabouts. On 02.09.2020, when she went to her in-laws’ house with her parents, they refused to open the door, compelling her to call the police. Despite police intervention, the in-laws refused to take her back. Subsequently, on 18.09.2020, she received a legal notice from the petitioner seeking mutual divorce. Basing on the complaint dated 26.10.2020, Crime No.30 of 2020 was registered under Sections 498-A of the IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act against the petitioner and his parents and the In