Vague and general allegations in domestic violence cases cannot sustain criminal prosecution; specific instances of harassment must be presented against each accused.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 seeking to quash the criminal proceedings pending against them in C.C.No.1321 of 2023 on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 498 -A of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘ IPC ’) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘the Act’).

2. Heard Sri N. Joy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1. Even after service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the unofficial respondent No.2. Perused the record.

3. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the accused No.1 and the respondent No.2 was solemnized on 30.07.2007, and they were blessed with two sons. Thereafter, she was subjected to mental and physical harassment for the purpose of additional dowry. It is further alleged that the accused No.1 is a womanizer and had developed illegal affairs with younger girls and widows and also with one Jhansi who is the sister of the respondent No.2. It is alleged that he got married one Zimbabwe woman and also the accused No.4. The accused No.1 had obtained her signatures on some papers and she came to know that they are divorce papers. In the year 2021, she was necked out of the house by the accused No.1. Thereby, she lodged the present complaint against the accused persons.

4. (a) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 have no involvement whatsoever in the alleged offences and never subjected the respondent No.2 to any form of harassment. It is submitted that the petitioner-accused No.2 is the sister-in- law and the petitioner-accused No.3 is the brother-in-law of the respondent No.2. The petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are living separately from the accused No.1 and the respondent No.2 and never interfered in the matrimonial affairs between the respondent No.2 and the accused No.1. The petitioners has neither demanded dowry from the respondent No.2 nor from her parents at any point of time. The petitioner-accused No.2 had eloped and married on 16.12.2004, which is much prior to the marriage of the accused No.1 and the respondent No.2, and since then she was residing along with her husband. It is further contended that there are no specific or direct allegations made against the petitioners in the charge sheet. The contents of the same do not disclose the essential ingredients necessary to constitute offences under Section 4 98 -A of IPC and Section 4 of the Act.

(b) With the above submissions, while praying to quash the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision in Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others v. State of Bihar and others , (2022) 6 SCC 599 wherein it was held that:

“14. Further in Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. it has also been observed:

“32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern.

33. The learne