THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.5295 of 2022

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in (old C.C.No.1990 of 2021 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge cum VIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally) C.C.No.8600 of 2022 on the file of XII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally. 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 V.S.R.M.V.Prasad Sanaka, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. 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 about twelve years ago. The accused No.1 with the instigation of the accused Nos.2 and 3 started harassing her physically and mentally by demanding additional dowry from her parents. Later they were blessed with a baby girl, but even then, the accused No.1 did not mend his behavior. 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 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. Respondent No.2 herself deserted her husband and it is not about the harassment made by the petitioners and her husband. The petitioners are senior citizens and suffering with old age ailments. The petitioner-accused No.2 is the father, the petitioner-accused No.3 is the mother of the accused No.1 and they are residing separately from the petitioner-accused No.1 and respondent No.2. The petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 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 and 3. 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 and 3, 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 & 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 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 prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. In the prese