THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5777 and 6412 of 2023

COMMON ORDER:

These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.1571 of 2021 on the file of the learned V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar (for short ‘trial Court’), arising out of Crime No.351 of 2019 of W.P.S. Saroornagar. The offences alleged against the petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5 are under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’).

2. Since both the criminal petitions are arising out of C.C.No.1571 of 2021, they are heard together and disposed of by way of this common order.

3. Heard Mr. Kiran Palakurthi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. D.Anantha Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2-de facto complainant and Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. Perused the record.

4. The petitioner-accused No.4 is the brother and the petitioner-

accused No.5 is the paternal aunt of accused No.1.

5. According to the complaint, the allegation against the petitioners- accused Nos.4 and 5 is that they have instigated accused Nos.1 to 3 in harassing the de facto complainant. When the de facto complainant was at her parental home, the petitioner-accused No.4 assisted accused No.1 in vacating the rented premises, where accused No.1 and de facto complainant had been residing. The petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5, along with other accused in the crime, have threatened the de facto complainant to see her end, if she blames them in the society.

6. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the case by the de facto complainant, only to wreck vengeance in view of the matrimonial disputes between the de facto complainant and accused No.1. It is contended that the petitioner-accused No.5 is staying away from de facto complainant and accused No.1, therefore, there was no occasion or necessity for her to harass the de facto complainant. It is further contended that the de facto complainant has intentionally deserted accused No.1. Accused No.1 has issued a notice, dated 29.10.2019 to the de facto complainant seeking restitution of conjugal rights. As a counterblast to the said notice, the present complaint was foisted against the petitioners and other accused with all false allegations. The present complaint was filed in 2019, whereas, the marriage of de facto complainant 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.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor in one tone contended that all the accused, including the petitioners herein, have harassed the de facto complainant after her marriage with accused No.1 and 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.

8. 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