THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6413 of 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.1144 of 2024 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 294(b) and 506 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act.

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 had lodged a complaint on 23.08.2023 at P.S. Chunchupalli alleging that her husband and his family members subjected her to mental and physical harassment by demanding additional dowry, abusing her in filthy language, and threatening her with dire consequences. Based on the complaint, the police registered FIR No.94 of 2023 and after investigation they filed a charge sheet, vide C.C.No.1144 of 2024 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhadradri Kothagudem.

3. Heard Sri V. Raghunath, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Veera Babu Gandu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 - State and Sri M. Pratheek Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2/de facto complainant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were innocent and respectable individuals who were falsely implicated without any lawful basis and that the allegations were vague, omnibus, and unsubstantiated, and even if taken at face value, they did not constitute the alleged offences. He contended that the complaint was motivated, drafted at the instance of family members, and filed with an intention to harass the petitioners and pressurize them for personal gains. He further submitted that the de facto complainant had been voluntarily residing at her parents’ house since 2014 out of her own choice, and the allegations of cruelty and dowry harassment were concocted to project a false criminal case.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the dispute was essentially matrimonial in nature but had been exaggerated and converted into a criminal case by lodging a lengthy and motivated complaint. He further contended that the petitioners were dragged into the proceedings with general and omnibus allegations without attributing any specific role or overt act against them. The counsel contended that the criminal law was being misused as a tool of vengeance by the complainant and her family to settle personal scores. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings the proceedings against the petitioners by allowing this criminal petition.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit denying the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the present petition was a clear abuse of process filed only to avoid trial, as the investigation was already completed and a detailed chargesheet had been filed. He further submitted that the FIR and chargesheet disclosed specific allegations of cruelty, dowry harassment, abuse and threats, supported by statements and corroborative material collected during investigation and that the petitioners’ pleas of false implication, honey-trap, job disputes, family negotiations, abortions, and photographs of happy moments were all disputed questions of fact which could only be tested at trial and not in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He contended that claims of fabrication, selective prosecution, or political influence were baseless and unsubstantiated, and that occasional family harmony or civil notices could not erase allegations of criminal conduct.

Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

7. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the allegations against accused No.1/husband are