THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.985 of 2024

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.674 of 2013 on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal Malkajgiri District at L.B.Nagar. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under sections 498-A, 323, 506 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘The Act’).

2. Heard M/s.L.Harish, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4 and M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. There is no appearance on behalf of respondent No.2.

Perused the record.

3. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that accused Nos.3 and 4 are the sisters of husband of respondent No.2. After marriage, her husband harassed her physically and mentally by saying that during their marriage she brought very less dowry to him, and by hearing the words of his mother and sisters he used to scuffle with her. Previously the 2^nd wife of her husband also left his company due to the harassment made by all the petitioners. Several times respondent No.2 has filed a complaint but the elders have conducted counseling between the respondent No.2 and accused No.1-husband of respondent No.2 and compromised the issues amicably and decided to provide amount of Rs.20,000/- for bearing expenses of the school education of her son as well as domestic expenses, but he avoided to provide the money to her and treated her as maid servant. Further her husband threatened her with dire consequences and to leave him and intentionally pressed her throat and all the petitioners tried to expel her from the house. Hence, the respondent No.2 filed the present case for the offences under Section 498-A, 323, 506 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners. It is submitted that respondent No.2 was partly examined in chief before the trial Court and it was deferred and thereafter she did not turn up. It is further submitted that the accused Nos.3 and 4 are sisters of accused No.1, who are residents of USA. There are no specific overt acts and omnibus allegations are made against them that they instigated her husband to harass her. It is further submitted that a final decree of partition suit pertaining to their family property was passed in O.S.No.140 of 2003 allotting 1/4^th share each to accused Nos.3 and 4 and accused No.1 was unsuccessful even in High Court in his appeal, due to which the present case was filed against the petitioners. Thus, all the allegations 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 is no prima facie case to attract the offences as alleged against the petitioners.

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:

“18. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that appellant No.1 harassed her and that appellant Nos.2 to 6 instigated him to do so, respondent No.2 has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment. She has also not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations.

21. Given the facts of this case and in view of the timing and context of the FIR, we find that respondent No.2 left the matrimonial house on 03.10.2021 after quarrelling with appellant No.1 with respe