THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.5372 of 2022

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.7219 of 2021 on the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACM), Manojanran Complex, Gandhi Bhavan, Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 498-A, 406, 420, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘the Act’).

02. Heard Smt.D.Pramada, learned counsel, representing Sri D.Devender Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1. Personal notice taken out by the learned counsel for the petitioners to the respondent No.2 was returned with an endorsement ‘no such person’. Hence, this Court directed to take out personal notice to the respondent No.2 through her counsel before the learned trial Court, for which, the learned counsel for the petitioner sent personal notice to the respondent No.2’s counsel through WhatsApp on 15.04.2025 and filed a screenshot copy of the same vide Memo in USR No.48374 of 2025. Therefore, the service of notice on respondent No.2 is held sufficient. Even after service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent No.2. Perused the record.

03. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage of the accused No.1 with the respondent No.2 was solemnized on 12.12.2013. They lived happily for some days. The accused No.1 had hearing problem and he did not attend any job but the said facts were concealed by the accused before the marriage. The accused No.1 used to maintain illicit relationship with another woman. The petitioner-accused No.2 is the mother of the accused No.1. The accused Nos.1 and 2 used to harass her physically and mentally by demanding additional dowry. Hence, the respondent No.2 filed the present case for the alleged offences.

04. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the petitioners are nothing to do with the alleged offences and that they never harassed the respondent No.2. There is no dishonest or fraudulent intention on the part of the petitioners- accused Nos.1 and 2. The petitioners never demanded any dowry from the respondent No.2 or her parents. There are no specific allegations against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2. There is a Memorandum of Understanding dated 23.09.2020 between the petitioner-accused No.1 and the respondent No.2 and they had amicably arrived at a settlement. As per the said MOU, the petitioner-accused No.1 and the respondent No.2 obtained mutual divorce vide Orders dated 29.09.2020 passed in F.C.O.P.No.457 of 2019. But the respondent No.2 failed to come forward for withdrawing or closing the present criminal case. The contents of the complaint or charge sheet do not disclose the required ingredients to attract the offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 420, 506 of IPC and 3, 4 of the Act. Hence, he prayed to quash criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2.

05. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners, which are triable issues. The truth or otherwise would come out only after conducting trial by the concerned Court and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition.

06. A perusal of the material placed on record discloses that except stating that since from the date of marriage the accused No.1 was not attending any job properly and that he was suffering from hearing problem, there were no specific details or descriptive particulars of instances of harassment caused by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2. Generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form basis for criminal prosecution.

07. It is to be noted here that a Memorandum of Understanding dated 23.09.2020 was execut