THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.3633 of 2022

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 7 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.241 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate at Bellampalli. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and 3, 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 7 and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. No representation on behalf of the unofficial 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. They lived happily for eight years. There are no issues to the accused No.1 and the respondent No2. The accused No.1 with the instigation of the accused Nos.2 to 7 started harassing her physically and mentally by demanding additional dowry from her parents. Four years ago, a panchayath was held by elders wherein the accused No.1 undertook to look after the respondent No.2 properly, but failed to do so. Hence, the respondent No.2 filed the present case for the offences under Sections 498-A of IPC and 3, 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. The petitioner-accused No.2 is the mother, the petitioner-accused No.3 is the younger brother, the petitioner-accused No.4 is the elder sister-in-law, the petitioner-accused No.5 is the younger sister, the petitioner-accused No.6 is the elder brother and the petitioner-accused No.7 is the paternal uncle of the accused No.1. The petitioner-accused No.2 is aged about 75 years and residing along with her elder son i.e. the petitioner-accused No.6. The petitioner-accused No.3 and 4 who are husband and wife are residing separately at Khadar Colony. The petitioner-accused No.5 and 7 are the residents of Mubarak Nagar. The petitioner-

accused No.6 is the resident of C.Colony. The petitioners- accused Nos.2 to 7 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 7. 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 3, 4 of the Act. While seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners- accused Nos.2 to 7, 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 allega