THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2762 of 2025

ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1931 of 2024 against the petitioners- accused Nos.2 to 4 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge- cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Rajanna Sircilla, for the offences under Section 85 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short ‘DP Act’).

2. Heard Mr.Alladi Ravinder, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. B.Srikanth, learned counsel for petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that accused No.1 and LW-1/complainant used to work in the same office in the USA. He further submitted that false allegations have been made against the petitioners by the de facto complainant, and that the petitioners never harassed or ill-treated the de facto complainant. It is also submitted that accused No.1 and the de facto complainant were living in the USA, while the in-laws resided in India. Therefore, the petitioners, who are accused Nos. 2 to 4, never had any occasion to interact with the complainant in a manner that could constitute harassment or ill-treatment.

Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that the offence is a continuous one and that there are specific allegations against the petitioners. It is further submitted that accused No.1 is absconding. The petitioners were residing in India and during the complainant's initial stay with them prior to leaving for USA, they have allegedly harassed her for bringing additional dowry. When accused No.1 demanded additional dowry, the de facto complainant informed accused Nos.2 to 4, but they also demanded her to bring an additional dowry of Rs.10 lakhs and supported accused No.1 in harassing her. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kishan Singh v. Gurpal Singh and others, (2010) 8 SCC 775, wherein it was held that prompt and early reporting of the occurrence by the informant, with all its vivid

details, lends assurance to the truth of the version presented. In cases where there is a delay in filing the FIR, the complainant must provide an explanation for the same. The Court, in such instances, is required to examine whether there is a plausible explanation for the delay. In the absence of such an explanation, the delay may prove fatal to the prosecution, and the reason for quashing the proceedings may not merely be that the allegations were an afterthought or presented with a coloured version of the events. In such cases, the Court should carefully examine the facts before it, as a frustrated litigant who has failed to succeed before the Civil Court may initiate criminal proceedings merely to harass the other side, driven by mala fide intentions or with the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance.

6. By relying on the said decision, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the complaint was lodged with an abnormal delay and, therefore, cannot be entertained. He further submitted that the incident allegedly took place on 04.12.2023, when the complainant was harassed and driven out of the house while she was in the USA. Thereafter, she stayed at her brother’s place in the USA, and upon returning to India on

19.08.2024, she has been residing with her family. Thus, the contention of the petitioners’ counsel is that, although the alleged date of harassment is 04.12.2023, the complaint was lodged only on 21.08.2024. Hence, in view of such an abnormal delay, the complaint is not liable to be entertained. The offence under Section 498-A of the IPC is considered to be a continuous offence. In the present case, the complaint narrates the details of har