THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.6239 of 2024

O R D E R :

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.197 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kodangal, registered for the offences under Section

498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act, 1961.

2. Heard Mr. N.Harinadh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State. On earlier occasions i.e., on 10.09.2024 and 03.09.2025, there was no representation for respondent No.2-de facto complainant. Even today also, there is no representation for respondent No.2-de facto complainant. Accordingly, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor was heard on her behalf, and orders have been passed on merits. Perused the record.

3. The petitioners-accused Nos.2, 3, 4 and 6 are the mother, father and two brothers of accused No.1 respectively. The petitioner-accused No.5 is the wife of petitioner-accused No.4. According to the complaint, the allegation against the petitioners herein is that they have instigated accused No.1 in harassing the de facto complainant for additional dowry.

4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners:

4.1. The petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case by the de facto complainant, only to wreck vengeance in view of the matrimonial disputes between de facto complainant and accused No.1. The petitioners were residing separately from the family of accused No.1 and the de facto complainant. The present complaint was lodged by the de facto complainant in 2020, whereas, the marriage of de facto complainant with accused No.1 was performed in 2014. The reason for such delay remained unexplained. It is also contended that except bald allegations, no specific overt acts are attributed to the petitioners.

4.2. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others v. State of Bihar and others, (2022) 6 SCC 599, wherein, it is held that the foremost issue that required determination was whether allegations made against the in-laws were general and omnibus allegations, which, if found to be vague and unsubstantiated, would be liable to be quashed. It is further held that if such general and sweeping allegations are not scrutinized and checked, they may lead to a gross misuse of the legal process, thereby defeating the ends of justice.

4.3. Thus, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that all the accused, including the petitioners herein, have harassed the de facto complainant after her marriage with accused No.1 and being unable to bear the same, the present complaint has been lodged. It is further contended that all the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of trial, and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage.

Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. For the sake of convenience, Section 498-A of IPC is extracted hereunder:

498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.—

Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.— For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—(a)any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or(b)harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable se