THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.8693 of 2022

O R D E R :

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.6521 of 2021 on the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad (for short ‘trial Court’), arising out of Crime No.922 of 2019 of W.P.S., CCS, DD, registered for the offences under Sections 498-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’).

2. Heard Mr. Syed Ghouse Basha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2-de facto complainant either on earlier occasions i.e., 30.04.2025 and 11.06.2025 or today, despite the matter pertaining to the year 2022.

Perused the record.

3. The petitioner-accused No.3 is the maternal aunt of accused No.1 and the petitioner-accused No.4 is the husband of petitioner-accused No.3.

4. According to the complaint, the allegation against the petitioners- accused Nos.3 and 4 is that they have instigated accused Nos.1 and 2 in harassing the victim. On the false promise made by the petitioners- accused Nos.3 and 4 that they will reunite accused No.1 and victim, the victim has withdrawn the case pending against accused. Thereafter, the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4 blocked the calls of victim and her family members.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case by the de facto complainant, only to wreck vengeance in view of the matrimonial disputes between victim and accused No.1. It is contended that the petitioners herein are staying away from victim and accused No.1. The present complaint was lodged by the de facto complainant in 2019, whereas, the marriage of victim with accused No.1 was performed in 2014. The reason for such delay also remained unexplained. It is also contended that except bald allegations, no specific overt acts are attributed to the petitioners. Thus, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that all the accused, including the petitioners herein, have harassed the victim after her marriage with accused No.1 and being unable to bear the same, the present complaint has been lodged. It is further contended that all the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of trial, and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, they prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. For the sake of convenience, Section 498-A of IPC is extracted hereunder:

498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.—

Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.— For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—(a)any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or(b)harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

8. In the judgment of State of Haryana and others v. CH.Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 SCC (Cri) 426, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:

The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 C