THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI Criminal Petition No.10022 of 2024

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNSS’) for quashment of proceedings in C.C.No.91 of 2024 on the file of the X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal at Athivelli, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

2. I have heard Mr. K. Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent No.1-State.

3. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3 in C.C.No.91 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the DP Act’).

Case Facts :

4. The prosecution’s case, in brief, is that the respondent No. 2/de facto complainant lodged a police report alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act. The petitioners have been arrayed as accused Nos. 2 and 3 in the report. It is alleged that the de facto complainant married accused No. 1 on 22.05.2021. Subsequent to the marriage, her husband and parents-in-law allegedly subjected her to harassment with a demand for additional dowry of Rs.1 crore.

It is further alleged that, during her pregnancy, she was physically assaulted and pushed down a flight of stairs, resulting in a miscarriage. Additionally, accused No. 1 is alleged to have maintained an extra-marital relationship, which the petitioners are accused of supporting. In view of this continued harassment, the de facto complainant left her matrimonial home on 11.03.2022. On these grounds, it is alleged that the petitioners committed the aforesaid offences.

5. Petitioners’ Submissions:

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they have been falsely implicated solely due to a matrimonial dispute between accused No. 1 and the de facto complainant. It is contended that the allegations against the petitioners are false, vague, and bereft of specific instances of harassment or dowry demand attributable to them. In the absence of particularised allegations or overt acts demonstrating their active involvement in cruelty, continuation of the criminal proceedings would, it is argued, amount to an abuse of the process of law.

It is further submitted that the complaint dated 30.10.2023 was filed nearly 18 months after the de facto complainant had left the matrimonial home, and only after accused No. 1 initiated proceedings before the Family Court. No plausible explanation has been provided for this delay, which, according to the petitioners, undermines the credibility of the allegations. Accordingly, the petitioners seek quashing of the proceedings.

In support of their plea, the petitioners rely on the authorities, (a)

Kahkashan Kausar v. State, MANU/SC/0163/2022,(b) Abhishek v. State of M.P., 2023 LawSuit (SC) 863, and (c) Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Others v. State of Telangana, 2025 (3) SCC 735 and pleaded that in these decisions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that criminal proceedings initiated against relatives of the husband without specific allegations or evidence of active involvement, merely to settle scores or wreak vengeance amount to an abuse of the court’s process. The Court emphasised that sweeping allegations unsupported by concrete evidence or specific details cannot form the basis for a criminal prosecution and should be quashed at the threshold.

6. Respondent’s Submissions:

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the statements of the de facto complainant and other witnesses do name the petitioners. However, it is conceded that, apart from general assertions of physical and mental harassment, no specific incidents or details are mentioned. However, it is contended that the veracity of such statements can only be assessed during the course of trial.

Accordingly, the State prays for dismissal of the petition.

7. I