THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.633 of 2024

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-

accused Nos. 2 to 4 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.119 of 2019 on the file of JFCM Mobile (PCR)-cum-I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Adilabad District. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under section 498-A, 323, 506 read with section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘The Act’).

2. Heard Sri D.Surakshit Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4, Sri T.Srujan Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the record.

3. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that accused Nos. 2 is father in law and A3 is mother in law and A4 is brother in law of the respondent No.2. The marriage of the respondent No.2 with the son of the petitioners No.2 and

3 was performed on 14.06.2012 by giving dowry of Rs.3,00,000/- cash, 1 tula of gold and motor cycle to the husband of respondent No.2. After marriage her husband harassed her physically and mentally to bring 3 lakhs additional dowry. He stated that if he marries another woman he will get more dowry and all the petitioners harassed her that she is not beautiful. During the marital life she was blessed with a son but her husband did not take care of her son. When the matter is informed to her parents they conducted a panchayat for two to three times. On that her husband gave assurance to look after the de facto complainant well, but he did not mend his behavior. On 28.11.2018 her husband came to house in drunken condition and closed the doors and abused her in filthy language and beat her with hands and threatened to kill her. Hence, the respondent No.2 filed the present case for the offences under Section 498-A, 323, 506 read with section 34 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- accused Nos.2 to 4 who are the father in law and mother in law and brother in law of the respondent No.2. Only omnibus and vague allegations are made against the petitioners being the parents and brother of the accused No.1 and roped them in a false case. It is further submitted that a bare perusal of the complaint and the charge sheet would entail that mentally or physically harassing the de facto complainant is without any basis and false in as much they were not present in the house in which de facto complainant and her husband were residing, as they started residing separately after five months of marriage as desired by the respondent No.2. The present complaint is lodged as a counter blast to the case lodged in C.C.No.17 of 2019 by the husband of the complainant.

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 case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations

indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. In the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the family of appellant No.1 have been Iiving in different citi