THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4307 OF 2025

ORDER :

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioners/Accused Nos.2, 4 to 6 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.1605 of 2023 pending on the file of XII- Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District, Rajendra Nagar registered for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and under Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘D.P.Act’).

2. The facts of the case are that on 02.03.2023, the complainant-2nd respondent lodged a complaint stating that her marriage with petitioner No.1-A.1 was performed on 05.07.2022 as per muslim rites and customs and at the time of marriage her parents gave an amount of Rs.1 Lakh, 5 tulas of gold jewelry, 25 tulas of silver and other furniture items. It is further alleged that under the instructions of her mother-in-law, sisters-in-law and brother-in-law, her husband-A.1 harassed her mentally and physically and on the 5^th day of marriage, she came to know that she is the second wife of A.1. That A.1 performed first marriage and his first wife was also being harassed physically and mentally for additional dowry and thereafter the matter was settled before Mursheed of their community. It is further alleged that her husband always used to taunt her and her family members for not bringing sufficient dowry. As such, requested the police to take necessary action against all the accused. Basing on the said complaint the police registered the case against the accused for the said offences.

3. Heard Sri Mohd. Muzaferullah Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. Inspite of service of notice, none appeared on behalf of 2^nd respondent.

4. The contention of learned counsel for petitioners is that petitioners 1 and 3 are the sisters of A.1, petitioner No.2 is the mother of A.1, and petitioner No.4 is the brother-in-law of A.1. The petitioners herein are not residing with A.1 and 2^nd respondent. Petitioner No.2 is the mother of A.1 and she is a senior citizen suffering with old age ailments and petitioner No.4 is the husband of petitioner No.3 and they are staying at Chanchalguda with their family and at no point of time, the petitioners interfered in the matrimonial issues of A.1 and 2^nd respondent, but they were roped into this case only to harass them. There are no specific allegations against these petitioners, as such, requested this Court to quash the proceedings against these petitioners.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition stating that there are allegations against these petitioners which require adjudication and requested this Court to dismiss this petition.

6. Considering the submissions made by the respective counsel and the material placed on record, the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 herein are mother, sisters of A.1 and petitioner No.4 is the husband of petitioner No.3 and the allegations against these petitioners are that they have instigated A.1 to harass the 2^nd respondent. Except omnibus allegations there are no specific allegations against these petitioners. In Neelu Chopra and Another Vs Bharti, (2009) 10 Supreme Court Cases 184, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the particulars of offence committed by each accused and role played by them in committing the offence need to be stated.

Further Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 10 SCC 741, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under :

“20. Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents of the FIR are perused, it is apparent that there are no allegations against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra except casual reference of their names which have been included in the FIR but mere casual reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of a