THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1438 of 2022

ORDER

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused

No. 3 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.273 of 2021 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class-Cum-Special Mobile Court at Khammam, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (In short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (In short

‘D.P.Act’).

2. When the matter was taken up for consideration on 23.09.2025, there was no representation on behalf of respondent No.2. To give one more opportunity, the matter was posted to 25.09.2025. On 25.09.2025 also, there was no representation on behalf of the respondent No.2, either in physical mode or virtual mode. To give one more opportunity, the matter was posted to 08.10.2025 under the caption “for orders”. Even today also, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent No.2 in morning session or afternoon session, either physically or virtually. Hence, this Court is not having any option except to proceed with the matter

on merits.

3. Heard Mr.Peri Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner appeared through video conference, and Mr.M.Vivekanand Reddy,

learned Assistant Government Pleader appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and she was falsely implicated in the present case only on the ground that the petitioner is the sister of accused No.1. Respondent No.2 has made omnibus allegations against the petitioner that she is supporting accused No.1 in demanding additional dowry. The entire allegations are levelled against the accused No.1 only.

5. He further submitted that the petitioner is living separately and she never harassed the respondent No.2 for additional dowry. Hence, the ingredients of Sections 498-A and 506 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act do not attract against the petitioner. The Investigating Officer, without properly conducting the investigation, filed the charge sheet for the aforesaid offences. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner would amounts to a clear abuse of the process of law.

6. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that respondent No.2 had made specific allegations against the petitioner. Hence, the provisions of Sections 498-A and 506 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act are attracted against the petitioner.

The petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings and the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. Having considering rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is revealed that respondent No.2 marriage was performed with accused No.1 on 29.04.2016. Subsequently, matrimonial disputes arose between them. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No.2 left the marital home of accused No.1 on

18.04.2020 and since then, both are living separately.

8. From the perusal of the complaint and the charge sheet, there are omnibus allegations are levelled against the petitioner. The only allegation made against the petitioner is that she supported accused No.1 in demanding additional dowry.

9. It is pertinent to mention that the law governing the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is well settled by the decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal1 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court illustratively catalogued categories of cases warranting quashment, such as when the allegations taken at face value do not constitute an offence, are absurd or inherently improbable, are actuated

1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 by mala fides, or where continuance of proceedings would amount to abuse of process, while cautioning that such power must be sparingly invoked to secure the ends of justice.

10. It is also