THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.1637 of 2022

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner-accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.3741 of 2021 on the file of the learned V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Warangal, registered for the offences under Sections 498-A 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’).

02. Heard Mr. K.Rajashekar, learned counsel representing Mr. G.Randeep Raj, counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State. No representation on behalf of respondent No.2. Perused the record.

03. The petitioner-accused No.1 is the husband of de facto complainant. The gist of the complaint is that the marriage of petitioner-accused No.1 was performed with the 2^nd respondent-de facto complainant on 31.03.2019. At the time of marriage, certain amount of dowry was given. They lived happily for some time and subsequently, the respondent No.2/de facto complainant blessed with a son. Thereafter, the petitioner-accused No.1 and his parents harassed the de facto complainant physically and mentally demanding additional dowry and they threatened to perform another marriage of the petitioner-accused No.1, if she will not bring additional dowry and also threatened to kill her.

04. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and he has 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 petitioner-accused No.1. There are no specific allegations levelled against the petitioner/accused No.1. The present complaint has been filed by the de facto complainant on 14.09.2021 i.e. after issuance of legal notice, dated 07.06.2021 by the petitioner/accused No.1. Thereafter, the petitioner/accused No.1 also filed F.C.O.P.No.305 of 2021 seeking dissolution of marriage between the petitioner/accused No.1 and the respondent No.2/de facto complainant. The respondent No.2/de facto complainant is facing charge for the offence under Section 302 of IPC for allegedly causing the death of father of the petitioner/accused No.1. Hence, all the allegations are levelled against the petitioner/accused No.1 only to settle the personal scores of respondent No.2. The contents of the complaint or charge sheet do not disclose the required ingredients to attract the offences under Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 of the Act. While seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.1, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State of Telangana and another, 2024 INSC 953, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, at paragraph Nos.18, 25, 31 and 32 held that:

“18. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that appellant No.1 harassed her and that appellant Nos.2 to 6 instigated him to do so, respondent No.2 has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment. She has also not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations.

25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband’s family when domestic disputes arise out

of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecu