THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.4025 of 2022

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.1067 of 2022 on the file of X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘the Act’).

02. Heard Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6, Sri V.Ganesh, learned counsel representing on behalf of Mr.V.M.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. 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 about nine years ago. Respondent No.2 was working as a software consultant in USA and at the insistence of the family members of her husband, 2^nd respondent remained as housewife. It is alleged that her husband and in laws have demanded to bring additional dowry and that the 5^th petitioner herein went to the house of parents of defacto complainant and asked for Rs.1 Crore to repay loan but they expressed their inability, which resulted in tensions in the family of the 2^nd respondent. 2^nd respondent gave birth to a baby boy on 26.04.2019 and her parents arrived to USA to assist her, and when they wanted to take her back to India, her husband and in laws picked up a quarrel and stated that if she was allowed to go to India, she has to stay at Mumbai. She stayed there for a month and her in laws ill treated her and humiliated on the ground that her parents did not help in repaying the loan amount. Later her husband sent notice to her asking her to come back to USA along with child but on the pretext that 2^nd respondent made unreasonable demands he did not arrange for dependent VISA but asked her to come on visiting VISA. Thus, the petitioners alleged to have conspired to destroy her marital life. Hence, the respondent No.2 filed the present case for the offences under Sections 498-A of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Act.

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. It is submitted that the petitioners did not demand the 2^nd respondent for payment of additional dowry from her parents. But the 2^nd respondent herself demanded her husband to stop sending any amounts to his parents and also made some other unreasonable demands. Except sending of amounts by accused No.1 to his parents, there are no disputes between the husband and wife. Even according to the 2^nd respondent, the alleged offences said to have been taken place in USA and no part of offence has taken place in India. The petitioner-accused No.2 is the father, the petitioner- accused No.3 is the mother of the accused No.1, the petitioner- accused No.4 and 5 are brothers of the accused No.1 and the petitioner-accused No.6 is the sister in law of accused No.1 and they are residing in India separately from the petitioner-accused No.1 and respondent No.2. The petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 never interfered in the matrimonial issues of respondent No.2 and the accused No.1. The petitioners never demanded any dowry from respondent No.2 or from her parents. There are no specific allegations against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6. The contents of the complaint or charge sheet do not disclose the required ingredients to attract the offences under Sections 498-A of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Act. While seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State of Telangana and another, AIR 2025 SUPREME C