THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.13048 of 2024

O R D E R :

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (previously Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) by the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 5 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.281 of 2016 pending on the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Manoranjan Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad (for short ‘trial Court’), registered for the offences under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’).

2. Heard Mr. Kongala Mohan Goud, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. Inspite of service of notice, there is no representation for respondent No.2-de facto complainant. Perused the record.

3. The petitioner-accused No.3 is the sister of accused No.1. The petitioner-accused No.5 is the husband of petitioner-accused No.3. According to the complaint, the allegation against the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 5 is that they have instigated accused No.1 in harassing the de facto complainant physically and mentally to bring additional dowry. When the de facto complainant expressed her parent’s inability, all the accused harassed her without providing her proper food.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case by the de facto complainant, only to wreck vengeance in view of the matrimonial disputes between the de facto complainant and accused No.1. The present complaint was lodged by the de facto complainant after six years of her marriage with accused No.1. The reason for such delay in lodging the complaint remained unexplained. It is further contended that when the de facto complainant demanded for a separate residence, as accused No.1 denied for the same, she lodged the present complaint against the accused. The petitioners herein are staying away from the de facto complainant and accused No.1. Except bald allegations, no specific overt acts are attributed to the petitioners. Thus, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that all the accused, including the petitioners herein, have harassed the de facto complainant after her marriage with accused No.1 and being unable to bear the same, the present complaint has been lodged. It is further contended that all the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of trial, and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage.

Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. For the sake of convenience, Section 498-A of IPC is extracted hereunder:

498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.—

Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.— For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—(a)any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or(b)harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

7. In the judgment of State of Haryana and others v. CH.Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 SCC (Cri) 426, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:

The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Articl