THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.12500 of 2024

O R D E R :

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.4267 of 2022 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad (for short ‘trial Court’), pertaining to Crime No.399 of 2022 of Women P.S. CCS, DD, registered for the offences under Section 498-A, 406 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘the Act’).

2. Heard Mr. Y.Soma Srinath Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners. None entered appearance on behalf of respondent No.2, hence heard Mr. M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State on behalf of respondent No.2 as well. Perused the record.

3. The gist of the complaint is that the 2^nd respondent-de facto complainant was married to one Kasula Abhitej in the month of March, 2017. Within one month of their marriage they both left to U.S.A. as they both used to do software jobs. They were happy for one year and blessed with a baby girl. Later she came to know that the Accused No.1 is having anxiety, panic attacks, depression and the fact was hidden prior to marriage. Since then Accused No.1 started harassing 2^nd respondent mentally and physically. Petitioner-accused No.2 is the father and accused No.3 is mother of Abhitej and they used to instigate accused No.1 over phone. 2^nd respondent and her husband came to India for visa stamping and went to in laws house. But her in laws did not allow her to go to her parents house and harassed her physically and mentally. All the accused started demanding her to give Rs.10,00,000/-. Unable to bear the torture 2^nd respondent came to her parents house along with her daughter.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the case by the de facto complainant only to rope the petitioners in a criminal case being parents of her husband. It is further contended that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners and the ingredients of offences under Section 498-A and 406 of IPC are not made out. Thus, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted all the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of trial, and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. For the sake of convenience, Section 498-A of IPC is extracted hereunder:

498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.—

Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.— For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—(a)any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or(b)harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

7. In the judgment of State of Haryana and others v. CH.Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 SCC (Cri) 426, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:

The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may