The court quashed proceedings against distant relatives under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act, finding insufficient evidence to sustain charges.

ORDER :

J. Sreenivas Rao, J.

This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 4 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , by the petitioners/accused Nos.4 to 6 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.5511 of 2020 on the file of the V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 4 98-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC ’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the D.P. Act’).

2. Brief facts of the case:

Respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint on 08.10.2020 stating that her marriage was performed with accused No.1 on 28.02.2019 and that at the time of marriage, her parents had given Rs.30 lakhs towards dowry. After the marriage, she joined the company of the accused at her marital home. At the instigation of accused Nos.2 and 3, accused No.1 abused and harassed her and made her promise not to disclose the same to her parents. On 18.04.2019, accused No.1 abused her and pushed her from the staircase, due to which she sustained severe injuries, and he threatened not to disclose the incident to her parents. She underwent an operation at Nightingale Hospital on 03.10.2019. During that time, accused Nos.1 to 3 did not cooperate with her and upon enquiry, she came to know that they had gone on a pilgrimage. Subsequently, accused Nos.1 to 3 and the petitioners, who are the sisters of accused No.1, abused her by pulling her injured hand. The petitioners instigated accused No.1 and made him harass her. Accused No.2 insulted her by asking whether she had brought a huge dowry. On several occasions, accused No.1 attempted to break her mangalasutram. Based on the said complaint, F.I.R.No.337 of 2020 was registered by the Saroornagar Women Police Station, Rachakonda, against the petitioners and accused Nos.1 to 3. The Investigating Officer after conducting investigation filed a charge sheet before the V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar. The learned Magistrate took cognizance for the aforesaid offence and renumbered the case as C.C.No.5511 of 2020.

3. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 24.09.2025, Mr. V. Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that pursuant to the order dated 27.01.2021, he sent personal notice to respondent No.2 and filed proof of service, vide Memo U.S.R.No.17345 of 2021. In spite of service of notice, respondent No.2 has not chosen to enter appearance. However, to give one more opportunity, the matter was posted to 13.10.2025. Today also, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2 either physically or virtually. This Court is not having any option except to proceed with the matter on merits.

4. Heard Mr. V. Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State.

5. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners:

5.1. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners are the sisters of accused No.1 and respondent No.2 is the wife of accused No.1. The petitioners have not committed any offence and they were falsely implicated in the present crime, though they never harassed respondent No.2 for additional dowry either physically or mentally. Hence, the ingredients under Sections 4 98-A and 506 of the IPC or Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act do not attract.

5.2. He further submitted that accused No.1 filed F.C.O.P.No.866 of 2020 before the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar against respondent No.2 seeking restitution of conjugal rights