Family members cannot be criminally prosecuted based on vague allegations; specificity is required to uphold justice and prevent abuse of legal process.

ORDER :

Juvvadi Sridevi, J.

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against them in C.C.No.402 of 2024 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kothagudem. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 4 98-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘the Act’).

2. Heard Sri C. Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused and Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State- respondent No.1 as well as Ms. Muniganti Kanakadurga, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Perused the record.

3. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage between accused No.1 and the respondent No.2 was solemnized on 24.04.2019. Thereafter, the accused No.1 left for Australia for the purpose of employment, and after about six months, he took the respondent No.2 to Australia. Upon expiry of her visitor visa, the respondent No.2 returned to India, and thereafter, the accused No.1 did not contact her for about one year. Subsequently, in October 2021, the respondent No.2 went to Australia, where the accused No.1 allegedly subjected her to physical and mental cruelty by abusing her in filthy language, stating that he had received better marriage proposals, and by demanding additional dowry from her parents. It is further alleged that on 16.11.2022, the accused No.1 brought the respondent No.2 to India and abandoned her at Kothagudem Railway Station. Thereafter, when the respondent No.2 approached the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3, they refused to speak to her. For which, the respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint, alleging offences under Section 4 98-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 have no involvement whatsoever in the alleged offences and never subjected the respondent No.2 to any form of harassment. It is submitted that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are parents of the accused No.1, who are aged about 64 and 54 years, respectively. They never interfered in the matrimonial affairs between the respondent No.2 and the accused No.1. The petitioners have neither demanded dowry from the respondent No.2 nor from her parents at any point of time. It is further contended that there are no specific or direct allegations made against the petitioners in the charge sheet. The contents of the same do not disclose the essential ingredients necessary to constitute offences under Section 4 98-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. Hence, he prayed to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1 as well as learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.2 submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners and the truth or otherwise would come out only after conducting trial by the concerned Court and prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

6. A perusal of the entire record reveals that after the marriage in the year 2019, the accused No.1 left for Australia and subsequently, the respondent No.2 joined him there, and they lived together for some time. Thereafter, it is alleged that the accused No.1 started subjecting her to physical and mental harassment by beating and abusing her. It is also evident from the record that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are the aged parents of the accused No.1 and that they have been residing separately from the accused No.1 and the respondent No.2.

7. In Geddam Jhansi and another v.