THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.1001 of 2024

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.520 of 2022 on the file of the Court of learned XII Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal, Cyberabad. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘The Act’).

2. Heard Ms.Babitha, learned counsel representing Mr.P.Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the petitioners- accused Nos.2 to 6, Sri P.Indra Prakash, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the record.

3. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that A2 is the Father, A3 is the sister, A4 is the husband of sister, A5 is the Paternal uncle and A6 is the wife of A5 in relation to accused No.1, who is the husband of respondent No.2. The marriage of the respondent No.2 with the son of the petitioner No.2 was performed on 22.11.2015 by giving cash of Rs.5,00,000/- and 6 lakhs worth articles and furniture, 1 kg gold to her and 10 tulas for her husband and a pulsar bike to her husband as dowry. Further, a Volkswagen car as well as Rs.2,00,000/- for honeymoon were given to her husband. Inspite of giving dowry as per their demand, the petitioners taunted her that they gave less dowry and demanded for additional dowry and also to register their house located at Kavali in the name of her husband and even attempted to kill her. After marriage, her husband harassed her by drinking alcohol and by hitting her every day and all the petitioners harassed her due to which respondent No.2 was attacked with epilepsy. Unable to bear the harassment, the respondent No.2 filed the present case for the offences under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners. After marriage, the 2^nd respondent and her husband lived in Bangalore as both of them are working at Bangalore and lived happily for six months within that period the respondent conceived and in the 6^th month pregnancy the father of 2^nd respondent suffered heart attack and she went to her parents house and stayed along with her parents at Hyderabad and respondent No.2 transferred her job from Bangalore to Hyderabad and also insisted her husband to resign his job and join in another company at Hyderabad. Accordingly, he resigned his job and joined in Cognizant company at Hyderabad and put up a family in a rented house far from respondent parents house, but the respondent No.2 insisted him to put up family nearer to her parents house. Later she gave birth to a male child. Respondent No.2 and her parents by creating fictitious story got foisted the present false case against the petitioners. The petitioners never resided along with 2^nd respondent and her husband and they were falsely implicated by the 2^nd respondent with a view to harass them. Further the respondent No.2 never provided food whenever 2^nd petitioner came to Bangalore and did not even talk to him. Thus, all the allegations against the petitioners are invented for the purpose of foisting a false case against the petitioners and there is no truth in the said allegations. Only omnibus and vague allegations are made against the petitioners. There are no specific allegations except stating that additional dowry was demanded by the petitioners and there are no details anywhere in the complaint about demand or receipt of additional dowry.

5. While seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State of Telangana and another, AIR 2025 SUPREME COURT 173 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court of India held as under:

25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal cas