Courts must exercise caution in marital disputes to prevent the misuse of legal provisions like Section 498-A, ensuring allegations are specific and substantiated before proceeding with criminal charges.

ORDER :

Juvvadi Sridevi, J.

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.447 of 2022 on the file of the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate at Athvelly. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘the Act’).

2. Heard Sri Malipeddi Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State- respondent No.1 as well as Sri D. Madhava Rao, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.2. Perused the record.

3. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the petitioner-accused No.1 and the respondent No.2 was solemnized on 19.11.2009. It is alleged that ever since the marriage, the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 have subjected the respondent No.2 to physical and mental cruelty in connection with their unlawful demand for additional dowry and also on the ground that she was unable to conceive and beget a child. It is further alleged that on 11.01.2022, at about 11:00 hours, the petitioner- accused No.1 beat and dragged the respondent No.2 out of the bedroom. Based on these allegations, the respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint alleging offences punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC & 3, 4 of the Act.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners have no involvement whatsoever in the alleged offences and that they never subjected the respondent No.2 to any form of harassment. It is submitted that the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 are the husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are aged about 66 and 70 years, respectively. It is further submitted that the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 never harassed the respondent No.2, and that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 never interfered in the matrimonial affairs between the respondent No.2 and petitioner-accused No.1. The petitioners have never made any demand for dowry from the respondent No.2. There are no specific or substantive allegations against the petitioners, nor is there any medical evidence to support the prosecution’s case. It is further submitted that the contents of the complaint and the charge sheet do not disclose the essential ingredients necessary to constitute the offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act.

5. With the above submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 while praying for the quashment of criminal proceedings relied upon a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State of Telangana and another , AIR 2025 SUPREME COURT 173 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court of India at Paragraph Nos.18, 24, 25, 28, 29, 31 & 32 held that:

“18. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that appellant No.1 harassed her and that appellant Nos.2 to 6 instigated him to do so, respondent No.2 has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment. She has also not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations.

24. Insofar as appellant Nos.2 to 6 are concerned, we find that they have no connection to the matter at hand and have been dragged into the web of crime without any rhyme or reason. A perusal of the FIR would indicate that no substantial and specific allegations have been made