THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.1078 of 2024

O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.232 of 2018 pending on the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad (for short ‘trial Court’), registered for the offences under Sections 498-A, 494 and 177 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

2. Heard Mr. Mohd. Muzaferullah Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State and Sri M.Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Perused the material on record.

3. The petitioner-accused No.2 is the mother and the petitioners- accused Nos.3 and 4 are the sisters of accused No.1. According to the complaint, the allegations against the petitioners are that when respondent No.2 became pregnant, the petitioners started demanding additional dowry and harassed her both mentally and physically. At the time of the “Shrimantham” ceremony, the petitioners picked up a quarrel with the brother of respondent No.2 by again demanding additional dowry. On that occasion, the parents of respondent No.2 reconciled them and sent her back to her in-laws’ house. However, after her return, the petitioners, keeping the said issue in mind, beat her. On 15.02.1999, during her pregnancy, respondent No.2 was driven out from her in-laws’ house. As the accused continued to harass her mentally and physically, respondent No.2 approached the caste elders, who advised her to live separately. Acting upon their advice, respondent No.2 rejoined the accused’s family, but the accused repeated the same acts of harassment. Due to unbearable harassment, respondent No.2 returned to her parents’ house. Since accused No.1 failed to take her back, she approached an Advocate and issued a legal notice, upon which the petitioners threatened her. In the year 2003, accused No.1 filed a divorce petition. Without her knowledge, accused No.1 contacted a second marriage. Although the trial Court directed accused No.1 to pay maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month, he failed to comply with the order. It is also stated that in the service book of accused No.1, he entered the name of his second wife. Hence, the accused persons have committed the alleged offences.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case by respondent No.2 only to wreak vengeance on account of the matrimonial disputes between her and accused No.1. He further contended that merely on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations, the petitioners have been roped into the case and shown as accused Nos.2 to 4. It is further contended that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are married and residing separately, and therefore, the question of their interference in the matrimonial disputes between accused No.1 and respondent No.2 does not arise. He also contended that insofar as the offence under Section 177 IPC is concerned, the same is not applicable to them, since the said offence deals with furnishing false information, and there is nothing on record to show that the petitioners have furnished any false information so as to attract the said offence. Except bald allegations, no specific overt acts are attributed to the petitioners. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that all the accused, including the petitioners herein, have harassed the respondent No.2 after her marriage with accused No.1 and being unable to bear the same, the present complaint has been lodged. It is further contended that 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