Criminal proceedings against relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes should be quashed when the allegations are omnibus, vague, lack specific instances of cruelty, and do not prima facie establish active involvement, as such prosecutions constitute an abuse of the legal process.

ORDER:

Criminal Petition has been filed by the Petitioners under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking quashment of the proceedings in C.C.No.513 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kanigiri against Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 to 7.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned Legal Aid Counsel for Respondent No.2.

3. Sri J.M.Naidu, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the entire prosecution in C.C.No.513 of 2023 is a manifest abuse of process, founded upon vague, omnibus, and unsubstantiated allegations under Section 498‑A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C.,’5) and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for brevity ‘the D.P.Act’). It is urged that the Petitioners, residing in Madhya Pradesh and Nellore, far away from the matrimonial home of the de-facto complainant, have been falsely implicated without any specific attribution of overt acts, dates, or circumstances of alleged harassment.

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners further submits that the charge sheet, resting solely on statements of the complainant’s relatives, discloses no iota of evidence against the Petitioners, and that the allegations are demonstrably mala fide, intended to exert coercive pressure in collateral civil disputes. The Petitioners, belonging to a respectable family, have been dragged into vexatious litigation without any nexus to the alleged matrimonial discord. In such circumstances, the continuation of proceedings would amount to travesty of justice, warranting the intervention of this Court to quash the charge sheet and protect the Petitioners from unwarranted prosecution.

5. On the other hand, Ms. P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the allegations in the complaint prima facie disclose offences under Section 498‑A of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and allied provisions, and that the charge sheet has been filed after due investigation. It is urged that the truth or falsity of the allegations is a matter for trial, and that the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ ought not to be invoked to stifle a legitimate prosecution at its threshold.

6. Sri Sudheer Kumar Attaluri, learned Legal Aid Counsel for Respondent No.2, while reiterating the arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, would submit that the Petitioners, being close relatives of the principal accused, have actively participated in the harassment and cruelty meted out to the complainant, and that their implication is neither casual nor mala fide. It is submitted that the complainant has consistently narrated the acts of harassment, and that the Petitioners cannot seek to evade trial merely on the plea of distance or residence in another State. The allegations, being serious in nature, deserve to be tested in the crucible of evidence and urged to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record.

8. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.513 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kanigiri is liable to be quashed in exercise of the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’/Section 528