Vague allegations against in-laws in dowry cases require dismissal to prevent misuse and ensure only substantiated claims are prosecuted.

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.889 of 2022 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 4 98-A , 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘the Act’).

02. Heard Mr.C.Haripreeth, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused Nos.2 and 3, Sri Syed Ahmed Ali, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the record.

03. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that accused Nos.2 and 3 are the in laws of the respondent No.2. The marriage of the respondent No.2 with the son of the petitioners was solemnized on 21.07.2003 as per Christian rites and customs, though respondent No.2 belongs to Muslim community, which is a love cum arranged marriage. After marriage, respondent No.2 joined the company of her husband at Hyderabad and lived happily for a couple of days. Thereafter accused Nos.1 to 3 started harassing her to get money from her parents and subjected her to cruelty. She was forced to do all the household work as servant. Later she conceived, but accused Nos.1 to 3 tortured her to go to U.S.A. for the sake of earning money and she went to USA. The petitioners used to put pressure and harass her to send money to them but they never made an enquiry about her wellbeing. She gave birth to a baby boy at U.S.A. in the year 2004 and the petitioners also forced her to name him as Nathan Kocherla. Later she returned to India and started living with accused Nos.1 to 3. She gave birth to her second child in the year 2014. A1 always used to take all her earnings for his lavish desires and also demanded additional dowry of Rs.5 Lakhs and also he used to consume alcohol, beat her and abused her in filthy language. Due to the said harassment respondent No.2 tried to commit suicide but stepped back for her children. Hence, the respondent No.2 filed the present case for the offences under Sections 4 98-A of IPC and Section 4 of the Act.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners- accused Nos.2 and 3 who are mother and father of accused No.1. The only allegation against them is that they used to instigate their son, due to which accused No.1 used to harass the defacto complainant. He further submits that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners and only omnibus and vague allegations are made against the petitioners herein. There are no specific allegations except stating that additional dowry was demanded by the petitioner and other family members and there are no details anywhere in the complaint about demand or receipt of additional dowry. The contents of the complaint or charge sheet do not disclose the required ingredients to attract the offences under Sections 4 98-A , 506 of IPC and Section 4 of the Act. While seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State of Telangana and another , [AIR 2025 SUPREME COURT 173] wherein the Honourable Supreme Court of India held as under:

25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution.