Vague and omnibus allegations in dowry cases may constitute abuse of process, necessitating quashing of proceedings against innocent family members without specific charges.

ORDER :

Juvvadi Sridevi, J.

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 6 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.1242 of 2024 on the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Manoranjan Complex, Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 4 98 -A, 406, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘ IPC ’) and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘the Act’).

2. Heard Sri V.Srinivasulu, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri P.Vikram Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri R.Ranganathan, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1. Perused the record.

3. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the petitioner-accused No.1 and the respondent No.2 was solemnized on 20.06.2019. It is alleged that ever since the marriage, the petitioner-accused Nos.1 to 6 have subjected the respondent No.2 to physical and mental cruelty in connection with their unlawful demand for additional dowry. It is further alleged that the accused No.1 is not fit for family life and used to postpone physical relations on one pretext or another. It is alleged that due to the unbearable harassment by the petitioners, respondent No.2 went to her parents’ house and stayed there for two months. It is further alleged that on 10.02.2020, respondent No.2 received a phone call from accused No.1, who directed her to join him and threatened that if she failed to do so, she would be dragged onto the street. Consequently, she returned to her in-laws’ house, but again the petitioners allegedly harassed her both mentally and physically. It is further alleged that accused No.1 married respondent No.2 only for societal appearance and not for leading a proper marital life, and that he has been maintaining an illicit relationship with his cousin, Mekala Saritha. Based on these allegations, respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint alleging offences punishable under Sections 4 98 -A, 406, and 506 of the IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners have no involvement whatsoever in the alleged offences and that they never subjected respondent No.2 to any form of harassment. It is submitted that the petitioner-accused No.1 is the husband, the petitioner- accused No.2 is the mother-in-law, the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 5 are the sisters-in-laws of the respondent No.2, and petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 6 are the husbands of petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 5. It is further submitted that petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 6 never harassed respondent No.2, and that petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 never interfered in the matrimonial affairs between respondent No.2 and petitioner-accused No.1. It is contended that the petitioners have never made any demand for dowry from respondent No.2 and that there are no specific or substantive allegations against them. It is further submitted that the contents of the complaint and the charge sheet do not disclose the essential ingredients necessary to constitute the alleged offences. It is also contended that, on one hand, respondent No.2 alleged that petitioner-accused No.1 is not fit for family life, and on the other hand, she alleged that accused No.1 is having an illegal relationship with his cousin, which itself clearly indicates that the present complaint has been filed with vague allegations. Hence, learned counsel prayed for quashing the proceedings against petit