Allegations of dowry harassment must be specific and substantiated; vague and general claims are insufficient to sustain criminal proceedings.

ORDER :

1. These Criminal Petitions i.e. Criminal Petition No.2156 of 2024 filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 and Criminal Petition No.2813 of 2025 filed by the petitioner- accused No.4, seeking to quash criminal proceedings pending against them in C.C.No.378 of 2016 and C.C.No.1394 of 2023 respectively, pending on the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, (for short ‘the learned trial Court’) arising out of the same crime vide FIR No.208 of 2016. The offences alleged against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 are under Sections 4 98 -A, 420, 406, 506, 379 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘ IPC ’) and Sections 4 & 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘the Act’).

2. Since the parties, allegations, and issues involved are common, both the Criminal Petitions are disposed of by way of this common order.

3. Heard Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri P.Srihari, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4; Sri G.Ashok Reddy, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.2 in CRL.P.No.2813 of 2025 and representing Ms. Y.Ratna Prabha, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.2 in CRL.P.No.2156 of 2024 as well as Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the record.

4. (a) In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage of the complainant-respondent No.2/LW1 was performed with the accused No.1 on 30.12.2011 at Imperial Garden, Secunderabad, according to Christian rites and customs. It was an arranged marriage. The accused Nos.1 to 4 allegedly demanded 100 tolas of gold jewellery, landed properties worth Rs.15 crore, and that the marriage be performed in a grand manner. On such demand of the accused Nos.1 to 4, the parents of the respondent No.2 provided 100 tolas of gold and diamond jewellery, and registered landed properties (i) Ac.17-00 guntas at Sadasivpet, Medak District, (ii) 666 sq. yards of land opposite Hi-Tech City, Madhapur, Hyderabad worth about Rs.15 crore, in the name of the respondent No.2. Her father incurred Rs.8 lakh on the engagement ceremony and further substantial expenditure for the marriage. On the date of marriage, the respondent No.2 also received jewellery from relatives and friends as gifts. At the time of marriage, her parents additionally gave Rs.2 lakh to the accused No.4 towards “Adapaducham Katnam.”

(b) It is further alleged that after marriage, the respondent No.2 stayed with the accused No.1 and his family at Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad, where she was allegedly subjected to harassment within a few days on the ground that the dowry given was inadequate. She was compared with others and subjected to sarcastic remarks. On 26.01.2012, the respondent No.2 and the accused No.1 moved to the United States of America, where the accused No.4 joined them. The accused No.4 allegedly instigated the accused No.1 against the respondent No.2. The accused Nos.2 and 3 also allegedly instigated the accused No.1 over phone to demand registration of the landed properties in the name of the accused No.1. They frequently quarrelled with the respondent No.2 over the said issue. The accused No.4 desired to marry the respondent No.2’s cousin (LW6), and the accused Nos.1 to 4 allegedly pressured her to convince LW6. When LW6 declined the proposal, the accused Nos.1 to 4 allegedly bore grudge against the respondent No.2 and her family and continued to harass her, demanding further dowry and transfer of the properties. The accused No.4 subsequently married another person in the United St