THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI Criminal Petition No.6566 of 2024

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNSS’) seeking quashment of proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.245 of 2024 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nakrekal, Nalgonda District.

2. I have heard Sri M.V.S.Sai Sharath, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent No.1-State.

3. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.245 of 2024 for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC.

4. Briefly stated, the prosecution’s case is that on 23.01.2024, the respondent No. 2/de facto complainant lodged a police report alleging that she was married to petitioner No. 1/accused No. 1 on 13.02.2021. After marriage, she joined matrimonial home and later became pregnant. Thereafter, petitioner No. 1 allegedly began harassing her both physically and mentally, accusing her of infidelity and denying the paternity of the child.

Despite these allegations, she gave birth to a female child on

30.08.2022. Even during that period, petitioner No. 1 reportedly quarreled with her father. Subsequently, she was taken back to the marital home by petitioner No. 1 and her mother-in-law/petitioner No. 2. However, according to the complainant, the harassment continued, centered on disputing the child’s paternity.

About ten months prior to the complaint, she returned once more to the matrimonial home after a panchayat intervention, during which her parents-in-law allegedly promised better treatment. For approximately two months thereafter, petitioner No. 1 resided with her, during which time she became pregnant again. She was then sent back to her maternal home.

During the third month of this pregnancy, a medical scan revealed fetal irregularities, including abnormal heart rate, poor growth, and internal abrasions. Despite this, the petitioners allegedly did not visit her, and petitioner No. 1, over the phone, denied responsibility for the pregnancy. She thus sought legal action, alleging harassment based on false accusations of infidelity and emotional as well as physical abuse during pregnancy.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the statements made by the complainant do not disclose any offence of ‘cruelty’ as defined under Section 498-A IPC. He argued that, on a plain reading of the allegations, there is no averment of dowry demand, nor any harassment or wilful conduct of such a nature as to drive the complainant to commit suicide or to cause grave injury. At best, the allegations pertain to suspicion of fidelity, which, according to counsel, does not amount to ‘cruelty’ within the meaning of the said section.

It was further submitted that the proceedings were initiated as an abuse of the process of law, intended to harass petitioner No. 1 in retaliation for a legal notice seeking mutual divorce. Counsel argued that the case was registered mechanically, without conducting a preliminary inquiry or counselling, in violation of the Supreme Court’s directions in Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1.

In the absence of specific allegations that would attract criminal liability, it was contended that the case falls within categories 1 and 2 of the guidelines laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Reliance was also placed on State of A.P. v. M. Madhusudan Rao, (2008) 15 SCC 582, and Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141. Accordingly, the petitioners prayed for quashing of the proceedings.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the police report and the complainant’s statement specifically disclose harassment in the form of imputations of infidelity and denial of paternity, acts which, it was argued, constitute mental cruelty and fall squarely within the scope of Section 498-A