The court emphasized the necessity for specific allegations in matrimonial disputes to prevent the misuse of legal provisions, holding that vague accusations do not justify trial against accused family members.

ORDER :

Juvvadi Sridevi, J.

These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.68 of 2024 on the file of the learned III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 were alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 of IPC, while the petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5 were alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC and Sections3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. Since both the criminal petitions are arising out of C.C.No.68 of 2024, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

3. Heard Mr. P.Animi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State. There is no representation for respondent No.2-de facto complainant. Perused the record.

4. The petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 are the mother, father and sister of accused No.1. The petitioner-accused No.5 is the husband of the petitioner-accused No.4. As per the averments in the complaint, dowry was given to the accused at the time of marriage on their demand. After marriage, accused No.1 and de facto complainant lived together with petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 for one month. When accused No.1 left for Bangalore in connection with his employment, the petitioners harassed the de facto complainant physically and mentally, abused and humiliated her. In May, 2022, when the de facto complainant visited the house of petitioner-accused No.4 at Bangalore, petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 4 demanded additional dowry and insisted her to transfer her property in their names. Unable to bear such harassment, she went to her parental house, but the accused refused to take her back. During her stay in the matrimonial home, the accused never allowed her to talk to anyone and never allowed her brother to come to their house. They also threatened to kill her if she speaks with her parents and if she fails to bring additional dowry. On the instigation of the petitioners, accused No.1 used to beat her and demand additional dowry. Finally on 30.08.2023, when the de facto complainant went to her parents’ house on the occasion of Rakhi festival, the accused refused to take her back.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case by the de facto complainant, only to wreck vengeance in view of the matrimonial disputes between de facto complainant and accused No.1. The petitioners never demanded the dowry or harassed the de facto complainant. Due to the harassment of de facto complainant, accused No.1 lost his job. The petitioners never resided under the same roof of accused No.1 and the de facto complainant. It is alleged in the complaint that the petitioners demanded additional dowry, but no specific date and time was mentioned. The present complaint was lodged by the de facto complainant on 13.12.2023, whereas, the marriage of de facto complainant with accused No.1 was performed on 11.02.2022. The reason for such delay remained unexplained. It is also contended that except bald allegations, no specific overt acts are attributed to the petitioners. Thus, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that all the accused, including the petitioners herein, have harassed the de facto complainant after her marriage with accused No.1