THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.2595 of 2022

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.191 of 2022 on the file of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Nizamabad. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘the Act’).

02. Heard Sri P.Sri Harsha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5, Sri C.Sharan 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 in the year 2021. After 10 days of her marriage they terminated the maid in the house, due to which respondent No.2 used to clean the house and cook the food.

Accused No.1 along with other family members harassed her physically and mentally and also to get additional dowry. Hence, the respondent No.2 filed the present case for the offences under Sections 498-A of IPC and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition 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 respondent No.2 for additional dowry. During the course of investigation on the basis of investigation, prosecution had dropped the case against A3 to A5 but the trial Court without considering the same had issued summons to all the accused including A3 to A5, by docket order dated 08.02.2020. It is submitted that the husband of the 1^st petitioner died on 11.03.2010, accused No.1 was sent by his father to Austria and during his stay all the expenses were borne by his father for 15 years and after death of his father he returned to India. Thereafter 1^st petitioner performed his marriage with respondent No.2 and permitted them to live in Flat at Bowenpally, which was one of the property of the husband of

1^st petitioner and 1^st petitioner used to live in another house at Begumpet. Since the time of marriage accused No.1 and respondent No.2 used to harass 1^st petitioner for partition of the properties hold by the husband of 1^st petitioner. As such differences arose between them, out of which she filed a complaint against them, only due to which the respondent No.2 filed the present case. The petitioner-accused No.2 is the mother, the petitioner-accused No.3 is the sister of the accused No.1, the petitioner-accused No.4 is husband of sister of the accused No.1 and the petitioner-accused No.5 is another sister of accused No.1 and they are residing separately from the petitioner-accused No.1 and respondent No.2. The petitioners- accused Nos.2 to 5 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 5. 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 section 4 of the Act. While seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners- accused Nos.2 to 5, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v.

State of Telangana and another, AIR 2025 SUPREME COURT 173 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court of India at Paragraph Nos.18, 25 and 31 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