THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.928 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 8 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.9558 of 2023 on the file of the learned XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6(1)(b) of D.P.

Act, 1961.

2. Heard Mr. M.A.K.Mukheed, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2-de facto complainant and Mr. M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State. Perused the record.

3. The petitioners-accused Nos.2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 are the father, mother, brother, sister and maternal uncles of accused No.1 respectively. The petitioner-accused No.6 is the husband of petitioner-accused No.5. According to the complaint, the allegation against the petitioners is that they have harassed the de facto complainant for additional dowry. It is alleged that on 29.04.2021, accused No.1 and his parents i.e., petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 physically assaulted and threatened her with dire consequences, and on 16.05.2021, all the accused beat her and necked her out of the matrimonial home.

4. 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 de facto complainant and accused No.1. It is contended that the de facto complainant is residing at her parental house, as accused No.1 left to Jeddah, K.S.A. within one month from their marriage. The present complaint was lodged by the de facto complainant in 2023, whereas, the marriage of de facto complainant with accused No.1 was performed in 2019. The reason for such delay remained unexplained. It is also contended that except bald allegations, no specific overt acts are attributed to the petitioners. Thus, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-de facto complainant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor in one voice 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, they 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 security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

7. 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 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the High Court either to