THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3676 of 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8 in C.C.No.236 of 2024 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mulugu, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498 (A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short ‘DP Act’).

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint before the police stating that she got married to petitioner No.1/accused No.1, Kadivendi Harikrishna, on 04.05.2023. At the time of marriage, her parents gave him 1.5 tolas of gold ornaments, household items, Rs.5 lakhs in cash, and 4 guntas of land as dowry. Initially, her husband treated her well for two months, but thereafter he began harassing her both mentally and physically. He was upset that her parents could not get the land registered in her name and that they would not receive the Kalyana Laxmi Scheme amount. He also suspected her character and demanded an additional Rs.10 lakhs as dowry. Further, her in-laws also participated in the harassment. Despite the abuse, she stayed with them for a month, but they eventually threw her out of the house on 22.08.2023. Her father attempted to resolve the matter through a panchayat with the assistance of caste elders, but her in-laws refused to take her back, stating they would not continue the marital relationship.

3. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.332 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 498 (A) of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act and after completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet vide C.C.No.236 of 2024 before the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mulugu. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed the present criminal petition.

4. Heard Sri Veera Babu Gandu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State. Though notice served upon respondent No.2, none appeared on her behalf.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the entire prosecution initiated against the petitioners is nothing but a gross abuse of process of law and that the complaint lodged by the 2^nd respondent is motivated by malice and filed with an ulterior intention to harass the petitioners, especially after petitioner No.1 issued a legal notice seeking divorce. He further submitted that except for petitioner No.1, the remaining petitioners are relatives who do not reside with the 2^nd respondent and have been falsely implicated without any specific, distinct, or overt allegations against them and that the FIR and charge sheet merely contain vague, omnibus, and general statements, without mentioning any specific acts, dates, or incidents to attract the offences under Section 498-A IPC or Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Police failed to conduct a preliminary enquiry before registration of the FIR as mandated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., 2014 (2) SCC 1, thereby rendering the entire investigation and charge sheet unsustainable in law. Reliance is also placed on various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court including Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand2, and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 supp (1) SCC 335, wherein it was held that vague and baseless allegations against relatives, without supporting material, deserve to be quashed at the threshold. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners by allowing this criminal petition.

7. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the matt