THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.15742 OF 2024

ORDER :

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.139 of 2024 pending on the file of II- Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kothagudem District registered for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and under Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘D.P.Act’).

2. The facts of the case are that the defacto complainant- respondent No.3 lodged a complaint stating that her marriage with petitioner No.1-A.1 was performed on 15.11.2013 which is an arranged marriage. After the marriage they lived happily for some time and they were blessed with one son, thereafter disputes arose between the parties and started living separately from September 2023. It is also alleged that petitioner No.1 had taken the salary of the complainant and he also demanded additional dowry from her parents. Petitioner No.1 also harassed the complainant physically and her sister-in-law also harassed her everyday. Further, the in-laws and sister-in-law of complainant instigated A.1 to harass the complainant for additional dowry. As such, requested the police to take necessary action. Basing on the said complaint, the police registered the case against the accused for the said offences.

3. Heard Sri A.Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State and Sri P.Chaitanya, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

4. The contention of learned counsel for petitioners is that after the marriage A.1 and respondent No.3 resided at Hyderabad, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 resided at Suryapet and petitioner No.4 is working as a lecturer and residing at Sircilla. Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 never resided with A.1 and respondent No.3. There are no specific allegations against petitioner Nos.2 to 4 and even against A.1 also. Only after filing divorce petition by A.1, respondent No.3 filed this complaint with false allegations under Section 498-A of IPC and under Section 3 and 4 of D.P.Act. As there are no specific allegations against the petitioners, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 would submit that there are allegations not only against A.1 but also against A.2 to A.4. Due to the instigation of A.2 to A.4, A.1 had not shown interest in respondent No.3 and a panchayat was also conducted before elders but due to the intervention of A.2 to A.4, the matter was not settled. Now A.1 transferred his property in the name of A.2 and A.3 which itself shows that A.2 to A.4 also have role in harassing respondent No.3. Hence, prayed to dismiss this petition.

6. Considering the submissions made by the respective counsel and the material placed on record, the allegations against all these accused are that petitioner/A.1 at the instigation of A.2 to A.4 harassed respondent No.3 for additional dowry and also abused her at the instigation of A.2 to A.4 and due to unbearable harassment, she left the company of A.1. As seen from the record, there are no specific allegations against A.2 to A.4. There are disputes between A.1 and respondent No.3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta Vs State of Jharkand, (2010) 7 SCC 667, held that there must be specific allegations against each of the accused and the family members of the accused/husband cannot be roped into the case. The allegations made against petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are very vague in nature and there are no specific or distinct allegations. In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs The State of Bihar², there must be specific and distinct allegations against such person are necessary and general omnibus allegation is not suffice to mak