THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3853 OF 2025

ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner/accused seeking the Court to quash the proceedings initiated against them in CC.No.472 of 2021 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Sangareddy, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. The brief facts of the case of prosecution are that the petitioner married Respondent No. 2 on July 8, 2016, and at the time of marriage, her parents gave dowry, including cash, gold, and household articles. However, it is alleged that the petitioner started harassing Respondent No. 2 physically and mentally for additional dowry and also demanded that her parents transfer their property to him. It is further stated that despite counseling and a previous complaint that led to a case being registered against him, the petitioner continued his harassment, maintained an illegal affair with another woman, and beat Respondent No. 2, forcing her to leave the matrimonial home. Based on the complaint, the police registered a case against the petitioner for the offences as alleged. Aggrieved thereby, this criminal petition is filed.

3. Heard Sri Apurva Gokhale, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 – State, and Sri G.Narasimha, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the complaint of respondent No.2 is false and intended to harass the petitioner, with allegations lacking specificity and evidence to support claims of dowry demands and harassment. He contended that the police conducted a mechanical investigation without verifying facts, filing a charge sheet based solely on statements from Respondent No. 2's family and friends. While citing precedents, learned counsel further contended that Section 498A IPC is being misused against the petitioner and basing on vague allegations, he cannot be implicated in the case. Therefore, he prayed this Court to allow the Criminal Petition, quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, and learned counsel for respondent No.2, vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioners and contended that basing on the averments made in the complaint, whereunder, serious allegations relating to harassment for dowry were leveled against the petitioner, the proceedings were initiated, implicating him as accused for the offences as alleged. It was asserted that earlier also a case was filed against the petitioner which was compromised before the lok adalat as the petitioner undertook to not harass the respondent No.2, but as there is no change in his behavior, the respondent No.2 lodged complaint against him. While advocating that the entire investigation in the case is completed and the case is coming up for adjudication as the disputed facts require adjudication, they prayed this Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

6. Having regard to rival submissions made, and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that the allegations leveled against this petitioner are with regard to him harassing the respondent No.2 and demanding dowry. It is seen that earlier also a case was registered against him for similar offences, but as he assured to take care of respondent No.2, the matter was compromised before the Lok Adalat. However, it is now alleged that the petitioner has aging began to harass the respondent No.2 and is demanding additional dowry. Considering the facts of this case in entirety, this Court is of the opinion that though there are contradictions in the statements, this is not the stage to decide the matter. There are no merits in this case, and the same is liable to be dismissed.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, sh