THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6047 of 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.2 in C.C.No.4622 of 2022 on the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 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 against the petitioner and other accused. She stated that she got married to accused No.1/D. Yadagiri on 27.05.2011 in an arranged marriage. After the marriage, her husband initially appeared kind, but soon his true nature emerged. They have two children together. Her mother-in-law constantly taunts her and complains to her husband about her household work, which leads to physical abuse by her husband. Her in-laws, including her mother-in-law, sister-in-law, and brother-in-law, harass her for dowry and instigate her husband against her. They also defame her in front of relatives and friends by sharing her personal matters. Her husband has physically abused her, including attempting to strangle her and throwing her down the stairs. He does not take care of their children or pay their school fees. They further harass her for not working or for not giving them enough money when she does work. Despite several panchayats (mediations) attempting to mend the relationship, the abuse continues.

3. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.626 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act, and after completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet, vide C.C.No.4622 of 2022, before the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad.

4. Heard Sri M.N. Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as 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 petitioner submitted that the petitioner was wrongly implicated in the said case and the allegations leveled against her, prima facie, do not constitute any offence as alleged in the complaint. He further submitted that the petitioner never interfered in the matrimonial disputes between accused No.1 and respondent No.2. Police filed the charge sheet without verifying the matter and there are no specific allegations against the petitioner except stating that she supported accused No.1. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

6. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the complaint itself shows that there are allegations against the petitioner. The petitioner is the mother of accused No.1 harassed respondent No.2. Therefore, the allegations leveled against the petitioner require trial and prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.

7. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the petitioner is the mother of accused No.1 and the allegations leveled against her are that she harassed respondent No.2 and demanded additional dowry. It is specifically contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is not residing with accused No.1 and respondent No.2 and further contended that except supporting accused No.1, she never interfered with the matrimonial disputes between them.

8. At this stage, it is imperative to note the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana and another¹, wherein in paragraph No.35, it is held as under:

“35. In one of the recent pronouncements of this Court in Mahmood Ali and