THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.1067 of 2024

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-

accused Nos.2, 3 & 5 to 9, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.5698 of 2023 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad for the alleged offences under section 498-A, 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘The Act’).

2. Heard Sri.N.Venkataiah, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.2, 3 & 5 to 9 and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. No representation on behalf of respondent No.2. Perused the record.

3. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that accused Nos.2 is the father, accused No.3 is the mother, accused No.5 is the alleged girl friend of accused No.1, accused Nos.6 to 9 are their distant relatives. It is averred that respondent No.2 was married to accused No.1, who is the son of accused Nos.2 & 3 on 31.12.2020. The accused Nos.1 to 4 and 6 to 10 harassed respondent No.2 mentally and physically and in particular accused Nos.1 to 4 harassed her for want of additional dowry and it is also stated that all the accused subjected her to criminal intimidation. Hence, the respondent No.2 filed the present case for the offences under Section 498-A, 506 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act .

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners-accused Nos.2, 3, 6 to 9 and only omnibus and vague allegations are made against the petitioners being the father, mother, and distant relatives of the accused No.1 and accused No.5 were roped in this false case. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 has filed this false case with an ulterior motive to harass the petitioners by implicating them in the present case. Further, no dates of alleged harassment were mentioned either in the complaint or in the charge sheet. Further, the marriage of respondent No.2 was performed in the year, 2020 and she was residing separately at Hyderabad soon after the marriage and filed false case in the year, 2022. There was endless harassment from respondent No.2, due to which the career of her husband was spoiled.

5. While seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners, 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:

“18. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that appellant No.1 harassed her and that appellant Nos.2 to 6 instigated him to do so, respondent No.2 has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment. She has also not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations.

24. Insofar as appellant Nos.2 to 6 are concerned, we find that they have no connection to the matter at hand and have been dragged into the web of crime without any rhyme or reason. A perusal of the FIR would indicate that no substantial and specific allegations have been made against appellant Nos.2 to 6 other than stating that they used to instigate appellant No.1 for demanding more dowry. It is also an admitted fact that they never resided with the couple namely appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 and their children. Appellant Nos.2 and 3 resided

together at Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh. Appellant Nos. 4 to 6 live in Nellore, Bengaluru and Guntur respectively.

31. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 held that the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realties into consideration while dealing with matrimonial c