THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.4175 of 2022

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in S.C.No.137 of 2021 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Mancherial. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 498-A, 506, 313 read with 34 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 Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 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 on 09.05.2018. On 19.02.2019 respondent No.2 gave birth to a baby girl and she led marital life happily for three months. Later her husband started harassment by saying that if he married someone else he would get more dowry and the accused No.1 with the instigation of the accused Nos.2 to 4 started harassing her physically and mentally by demanding additional dowry from her parents. On 09.02.2020, accused No.1 beat her with hot cooking vessel and on being aware of the said instance, her parents took her with them. Later she lodged a complaint and on counseling conducted by the police, her husband took her back to their house. After six months he again started harassing the defacto complainant. Later when she got pregnant, accused No.1 forced her to get aborted or otherwise he would kill her, due to which she agreed but he again beat her to get additional dowry and locked her and her child in the house on 15.11.2020 and did not return. Hence, the respondent No.2 filed the present case for the offences under Sections 498-A, 506, 313 read with 34 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. The petitioner-accused No.2 is the mother, the petitioner-accused No.3 is the father, petitioner No.4 is the brother 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 to 4 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 4. 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 4, 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