THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.2743 of 2024

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.2, 4 to 6 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.146 of 2022 on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Gadwal, Jogulamba Gadwal District. 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 P.Animi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.2, 4 to 6 and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State. Though the notice sent to the respondent No.2, the respondent No.2 has refused to receive the same and there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2 either in person or through counsel, as such, this Court after recording her absence proceeded to dispose of the present matter on merits.. Perused the record.

03. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of accused No.1 with respondent No.2 was solemnized on

28.07.2017. They lived happily only for about three months. Thereafter, they shifted to Hyderabad in connection with the employment of accused No.1, and resided in a rented house. Accused Nos.2 and 3 used to visit their residence oftenly. A few days later, accused No.2 came to Hyderabad and started residing with them. After about six months, accused No.1 allegedly began returning home in a drunken condition and subjected respondent No.2 to physical harassment by beating her and abusing her in vulgar language, while demanding that her parents purchase a new house in Hyderabad for him. Accused Nos.2 to 6, who are family members and close relatives of accused No.1, are alleged to have supported and encouraged accused No.1 in harassing respondent No.2 and in demanding a new house as additional dowry. They also directly harassed her by abusing her in vulgar language. Subsequently, accused Nos.1 to 6 sent respondent No.2 back to her parental home with a demand that she should agree for mutual divorce if she failed to fulfill their demands. Hence, respondent No.2 filed the present case for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 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 father of accused No.1, the petitioner-accused No.4 is the brother of accused No.1. The petitioners-accused Nos.2, 4 to 6 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, 4 to 6. 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.

05. The learned counsel for petitioners further submits that when accused No.1 filed Divorce Petition on 12.02.2021 against respondent No.2 under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, respondent No.2 filed the present complaint against accused No.1 and the petitioners herein only with a view to harass them. While seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2, 4 to 6, 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 d