THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.12624 of 2024

O R D E R :

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 582 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (previously Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 5 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.215 of 2024 pending on the file of the learned Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Husnabad (for short ‘trial Court’), registered for the offences under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’).

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State. Inspite of service of notice, there is no representation for respondent No.2-de facto complainant. Perused the material on record.

3. The petitioner-accused No.1 is the husband of the de facto complainant. The petitioner-accused No.2 is the brother of petitioner- accused No.1 and petitioner-accused No.5 is the wife of petitioner- accused No.2. The petitioner-accused No.3 is the second wife of petitioner-accused No.1’s father, and the petitioner-accused No.4 is the aunt of petitioner-accused No.1.

4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the marriage between the de facto complainant and petitioner-accused No.1 took place on 01.12.2023. After one month of marriage, all the accused harassed the de facto complainant physically and mentally to bring additional dowry, poured hot water on her, and eventually necked her out of the matrimonial home on 16.01.2024.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that 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 her and petitioner-accused No.1. The present complaint was lodged by the de facto complainant in 2024, whereas, the marriage of de facto complainant with petitioner-accused No.1 was performed in 2023. The reason for such delay in lodging the complaint remained unexplained. Except bald allegations, no specific overt acts are attributed to the petitioners. Thus, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that all the accused have harassed the de facto complainant after her marriage with petitioner-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, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. For better adjudication of the case, 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 security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

8. In the judgment of State of Haryana and others v. CH.Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 SCC (Cri) 426, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:

The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers