ORDER :

Y. Lakshmana Rao, J.

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity 'the Cr.P.C.,')/Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity 'the BNSS') seeking to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No.2 in C.C.No.3031 of 2021 on the file of the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity 'the I.P.C').

2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the learned Legal Aid Counsel for Respondent No.2, and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

3. Respondent No.2 is the daughter-in-law of the Petitioner. The Petitioner is the mother of Accused No.1. Accused No.1 is the husband of Respondent No.2 and died on 09.04.2025 due to cardiac arrest.

4. Respondent No.2, on 08.02.2020, lodged a complaint against the Petitioner and Accused No.1, which was registered as a case in Crime No.29 of 2020 for the alleged offence punishable under Section 498-A of 'the I.P.C'. The allegations against Accused No.1, who is now deceased, and the Petitioner, being the mother-in-law of Respondent No.2, are that Accused No.1 was addicted to vices, was irresponsible, and used to beat Respondent No.2. It is further alleged that he maintained illicit relationships with other women.

5. It is also alleged that the Petitioner, being the mother of Accused No.1, did not show any responsibility in restraining him and neither admonished nor corrected his behavior. The Respondent No.2 further alleged that the Petitioner used to instigate Accused No.1 to assault her.

6. However, a careful reading of the complaint reveals that there is no allegation that the Petitioner or her son ever demanded additional dowry. There are no allegations of cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. Mere allegations of physical assault by Accused No.1 or his alleged illicit relationships do not, by themselves, constitute “cruelty” within the meaning of Section 498-A of 'the I.P.C.,' in the absence of any dowry-related harassment.

7. Further, there are no specific details as to the dates, time, or place of the alleged acts of assault by Accused No.1, nor are there specific particulars regarding the alleged instigation by the Petitioner. The FIR, as well as the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer from Respondent No.2 and other prosecution witnesses, do not disclose allegations sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 498-A of 'the I.P.C'.

8. It is pertinent to note that the said decree was passed subsequent to the registration of the FIR at the instance of Respondent No.2. Further, as stated supra, the husband of Respondent No.2 (Accused No.1) died on 13.03.2025. In view of the dissolution of marriage and the subsequent death of Accused No.1, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioner, who is only the mother-in-law of Respondent No.2, would serve no useful purpose.

9. In view of the fact that the allegations levelled against the Petitioner would not attract the offence punishable under Section 498-A of 'the I.P.C.,' continuation of the proceedings before the learned Magistrate is nothing but an abuse of the process of law.

10. In this regard, it is opposite to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452, wherein at paragraph No.6 it is held as under:

“6. Criminal proceedings are not normally interdicted by us at the interlocutory stage unless there is an abuse of the process of a court. This Court, at the same time, does not hesitate to interfere to secure the ends of justice. The courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their in