The continuation of criminal proceedings against family members without specific allegations constitutes an abuse of process, necessitating precise evidence and clarity in matrimonial disputes.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 7 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.2788 of 2024 on the file of the learned IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 498-A, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

2. Heard Sri A. Ravinder Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Jella Srikanth, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1 as well as Sri Papaiah Peddakula, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.2. Perused the record.

3. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the first wife of the petitioner-accused No.1 dead due to some health issues and the petitioner-accused No.1 had a son through his first wife. Thereafter, the marriage between the petitioner-accused No.1 and the respondent No.2 was solemnized on 09.11.2019. It is alleged that the petitioner-accused No.1 along with the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 7 used to beat the respondent No.2 and harassed her both physically and mentally without providing any basic necessities. It is further alleged that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 7 used to support the petitioner-accused No.1. The accused No.1 forced her to take some pills for not conceiving. Based on these allegations, the respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint alleging offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 of IPC.

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 7 are the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, sisters-in-law and husbands of the sisters-in-laws of the respondent No.2, and that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are aged about 72 and 67 years, respectively. It is further submitted that the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 7 never harassed the respondent No.2, and that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 7 never interfered in the matrimonial affairs between the respondent No.2 and the 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 Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC.

5. With the above submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused 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 SC 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 against appellant Nos.2 to 6 other than stating that they used to instigate appellant No.1 for demanding more dowry. It is also an admitted fact that they never resided with the couple namely appellant No