THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.9221 of 2024

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.518 of 2023 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Miryalguda. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under section 498 A Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘The Act’).

2. Heard M/s.Pawan Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 7, Mr.Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the record.

3. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that accused No. 2 is mother in law, accused Nos.3, 4 are brother in laws and accused Nos.5 and 6 are the co-sisters of the 2^nd respondent and accused No.7 is mentioned as cook. It is averred that 2^nd respondent was married to accused No.1, who is the son of accused No.2 in the year 2017. All the accused harassed the 2^nd respondent mentally and physically for additional dowry and it is also stated that they also locked her in a room and tortured her and beat her and poured kerosene and burned her hands. Hence, the respondent No.2 filed the present case for the offences under Section 498 A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners- accused Nos.2 to 7 and only omnibus and vague allegations are made against the petitioners being the mother, brothers and sisters in law of accused No.1 and their cook were roped in a false case. It is further submitted that 2^nd respondent has filed a series of false cases in various Courts the allegations in which are different from the present case which is an after-thought with a motive to harass the petitioners by implicating them in the present case. Further no dates of alleged harassment were mentioned in the complaint or charge sheet. Further the marriage of the 2^nd respondent was performed in the year 2017 and she was residing separately from 2019 itself and filed all false cases in the year 2020 in various Courts, whereas the present complaint was lodged in the year 2023, no plausible explanation for delay is given by the 2^nd respondent. There was endless harassment from 2^nd respondent, due to which the career of her husband was spoiled and her husband filed a divorce O.P.No.764 of 2020 in the year 2020 before the Family Court at L.B.Nagar and the same is pending. As a counter blast to the said petition, 2^nd respondent filed a series of cases on the petitioners. Further in W.P.No.24501 of 2020 before the High Court, filed by the 2^nd respondent for habeas corpus she stated that her husband is a very good person, whereas in the present complaint she made several allegations, which shows the contradictory version of 2^nd respondent. Further 2^nd respondent also filed a false complaint against petitioner Nos.2 and 3 stating that they have committed rape on her. After conducting enquiry the concerned investigating officer dropped the said complaint against the petitioner Nos.2 and

3.

5. While seeking to quash the criminal proceedings

against the petitioners, 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 held as under:

“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.

24. Ins