Vague and general allegations against relatives without specific instances do not constitute a prima facie case, warranting quashing of proceedings under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act.

ORDER :

J. SREENIVAS RAO, J.

This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.858 of 2021 on the file of the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’) and Sections 3 and 6 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 08.12.2020 stating that she married accused No.1 on 11.02.2010 at Visakhapatnam in a love-cum-arranged marriage. At the time of marriage, cash, gold, vehicles and other articles were given. After the marriage, they were blessed with a male child. During ten years of marital life, she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by accused Nos.1 to 3. She was insulted, harassed, and discriminated against on the basis of caste and colour. The husband allegedly maintained illicit relationships with other women and, when questioned about the same, assaulted and abused her. Accused No.1 also threatened to kill their minor son and on one occasion, took the child away for several hours without informing her and did not respond to her calls. She further stated that accused No.1 neglected his duties as a husband and father and deserted her on 18.02.2019 by leaving the matrimonial home. She alleged stated that she has not received any financial support since January 2020 and accused Nos. 2 and 3 also failed to support her. Therefore, she approached the Women Police Station, Begumpet, and lodged a complaint on 08.12.2020 seeking legal action against the petitioners and accused No.1. Based on the said complaint, F.I.R.No.119 of 2020 was registered by the Women Police Station, Begumpet, Hyderabad City, against the petitioners and accused No.1. The Investigating Officer after conducting investigation filed a charge sheet before the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The learned Magistrate took cognizance for the aforesaid offences and renumbered the case as C.C.No.858 of 2021.

3. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 06.10.2025, there was no representation on behalf of respondent No.2. To give one opportunity, the matter was posted on 13.10.2025. Once again, when the matter was taken up for hearing on 19.01.2026, there was no representation on behalf of respondent No.2, either physically or virtually. To give one more opportunity, the matter was posted to 21.01.2026 under the caption ‘for orders’. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2 in the morning and afternoon sessions, either physically or virtually. Therefore, this Court has no option except to proceed with the matter on merits.

4. Heard Mr. Akshat Sanghi, learned counsel representing Mr. Sharad Sanghi, 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:

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence and they have been falsely implicated in the present crime solely on the ground that they are the parents of accused No.1. The petitioners never lived with respondent No.2 and accused No.1 and that, after the marriage, respondent No.2 and accused No.1 have been living separately. The only allegation made in the complaint as well as in the final report is that the petitioners are supporting accused No.1. The nature of the