THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CRIMINAL PETITION No.879 OF 2025

O R D E R:

This criminal petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short ‘BNSS’) by petitioner/accused No.4 to quash the proceedings against her in C.C.No.129 of 2023 on the file of II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri.

2. Heard Mr. Syed Riyazuddin, learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.4, Mr. Surepalli Prashanth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and Ms. K.Sridevi, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. On the basis of complaint by respondent No.2, FIR No.884 of 2022 came to be registered on 29.08.2022, under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) against 4 persons. Petitioner herein is arrayed as accused No.4. The allegation of the complainant is that her marriage took place with one V.Sudershan alias Sudheer on 26.02.2021 at Chennai. That petitioner/accused No.4 arranged the marriage of complainant and Sudheer (accused No.1), who is the brother of petitioner/accused No.4. A charge sheet is filed, statements of witnesses are taken by the Police. Charge sheet and documents are annexed to the petition.

4. Allegations are that her husband (accused No.1) was suffering from psychological disorder and that because of this, his 1st marriage ended in separation. Complainant suspected whether her husband had obtained divorce or not. It is further alleged that petitioner/accused No.4 was instigating her brother (husband of complainant), who was harassing the complainant, her parents and her brother by abusing them in filthy language. That the fact of 1^st marriage of accused No.1 ended in separation due to the psychological disorder was hidden from her.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner only facilitated her brother’s marriage by requesting complainant to speak to accused No.1 so that she could assess whether she would go ahead with the marriage or not. It is further submitted that the allegations of complainant regarding her husband’s 1st marriage separation was due to his psychological disorder is not correct and is a false allegation.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner placed on record the order in OP.No.4415 of 2014 passed by the V Additional Family Court, Chennai. It is submitted that the complainant’s husband (accused No.1) was granted divorce on the ground that his 1^st wife deserted him and caused threat to his life and that the marriage broke down of desertion and the marriage petition was allowed. It is further submitted that it is the second marriage for both accused No.1 and complainant. It is also submitted that accused No.4 came across the profile of complainant, contacted the complainant’s parents and it is only after speaking to the elders, the marriage was arranged between accused No.1 and complainant.

7. It is submitted that there are no specific allegations with respect to any physical abuse or torture or mental agony caused by accused No.4 or any allegations of demand for dowry or additional dowry. That in the absence of such allegations/accusations against petitioner/accused No.4, Section 498A of IPC would not get attracted. It is further submitted that for an offence to be made out under Section 498A of IPC, the ingredients of the Section are to be spelled in the complaint. It is pointed out that a perusal of the complaint would indicate that no ingredients are made out in the remotest manner to attract an offence under Section 498A of IPC. That in such a context, the continuation of proceedings against petitioner/accused No.4 for the offence under Section 498A of IPC in C.C.No.129 of 2023 before the II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri, would be an abuse of process of law.

8. This Court queried as to what is the stage of case, it is stated by learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.4 that charges have not been framed by trial Court. It is further submitted that two discharge petitions are filed by family m