THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.5399 of 2024

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-

accused Nos. 2 and 3 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.217 of 2022 on the file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Athivelli, Medchal Malkajgiri District. 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 M/s.Tanushree Bose, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 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 and 3 are Mother in law and Father in law of the respondent No.2. The marriage of the respondent No.2 with the son of the petitioners was performed on 18.11.2020 by giving dowry of Rs.33,00,000/- cash, 25 tulas of gold, 2 kg silver and household articles and spending Rs.20,00,000/- for marriage. After marriage only for 3 days she was looked after well by her husband and later her husband started neglecting her and after 10 days of their marriage, her husband left to Canada for his job, by assuring that he will do visa process to get her there. After reaching Canada her husband started to abuse her in filthy language over phone for various reasons and to get done surgery for extra right foot bone with her parents expenditure, then only he will take her to Canada. Sister in law of respondent No.2 who resides at USA also harassed her by involving in her personal life and demanded Rs.2,00,000/-, 50 grams gold from the complainant. Accused Nos.2 and 3 who are mother in law and father in law also harassed her regarding transfer of property which are under her father’s name, they took all gold and household articles and clothes of complainant and threatened her and her father for extra dowry. Hence, the respondent No.2 filed the present case for the offences under Section 498 A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners- accused Nos.2 and 3 who are the Mother in law and Father in law of the respondent No.2. Only omnibus and vague allegations are made against the petitioners being the parents 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 2^nd respondent does not arise as they did not reside under the same roof for a considerable period. He further submitted that the marriage of the respondent No.2 was performed on 18.11.2020 and the accused No.1 who is son of the petitioners left to Canada on 02.12.2020. Thereafter immediately the 2^nd respondent moved back to her parents house and she hardly stayed for a period of 8 days in the matrimonial house, which is established even from her 161 Cr.P.C. statement. The allegation as per the complaint is that there was demand of dowry and there are no specific allegations with regard to dowry and they never resided with their son and defacto complainant at any other time.

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 unsup