THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.6140 of 2024

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 6 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.358 of 2021 on the file of XXII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Pet Basheerabad, Medchal. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Section 498-A, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘the Act’).

02. Heard Sri U.V.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 6, Sri Naseem Ara, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the record.

03. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that R2 is the defacto complainant and A1 is the husband, A2 is mother in law, A3 is father in law, A4 is the grandfather of husband, A5 is the grandmother of husband and A6 is brother in law of husband. The marriage of the accused No.1 with the respondent No.2 was solemnized on 10.03.2016 at Santhanutalapaadu Mandal, Prakasham District, Andhra Pradesh, which was an arranged marriage and they were leading happy marital life in Hyderabad. While they were living at Hyderabad, her in laws called the complainant and accused No.1 to come back to the native place by leaving their jobs, accordingly, they went to their native place. It is averred that all the petitioners subjected the respondent No.2 to cruelty and heinous allegations were levelled against her and demanded additional dowry and she was necked out from the house. Hence, the respondent No.2 filed the present case for the offences under Sections 498-A, 506 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

04. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the petitioners are nothing to do with the alleged offences and that they never harassed the respondent No.2. Mere making sweeping general accusations in FIR and complaint against all family members including grand parents and brother in law, with no specific role, date or incident attributed to any individual petitioner does not constitute an offence. Further the alleged demand of dowry is unsubstantiated. It is further submitted that the alleged incident of necking her out from house took place on 15.03.2018, but the complaint was filed on 04.12.2019 and the delay in lodging the complaint is unexplained, which shows that the case is filed only to harass the petitioners including aged relatives. The contents of the complaint or charge sheet do not disclose the required ingredients to attract the offences under Sections 498-A of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Act.

05. While seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 6, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State of Telangana and another wherein the Honourable Supreme Court of India at Paragraph Nos.18, 25 and 31 held that:

“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

1 AIR 2025 SUPREME COURT 173

not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations.

25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband’s family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evid