THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.5775 of 2023

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.4 to 6 seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against them in C.C.No.1096 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate at Sircilla. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘the Act’).

02. Heard Sri T.Surya Satish, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1 as well as Sri Nambi Krishna, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.2. Perused the record.

03. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the accused No.1 and the respondent No.2 was solemnized on 29.06.2022, and they lived together happily for about one month. Thereafter, the accused Nos.1 to 6 allegedly subjected the respondent No.2 to physical and mental harassment by demanding additional dowry. It is further alleged that, in a panchayat convened by the elders, the accused assured that they would treat her well in future; however, they failed to mend their behaviour. Aggrieved by the said harassment, the respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint, alleging offences under Section 498-A read with 34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Act.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners-accused Nos.4 to 6 has no involvement whatsoever in the alleged offences and has never subjected the respondent No.2 to any form of harassment. It is submitted that the petitioner-accused No.4 is the sister of the accused No.1, the petitioner-accused No.5 is the husband of the accused No.4, the petitioner-accused No.6 is the brother of the father-in-law of the respondent No.2. They never interfered in the matrimonial affairs between the respondent No.2 and the accused No.1. The petitioners have neither demanded dowry from the respondent No.2 nor from her parents at any point of time. The petitioners are residing separately from the accused No.1 and the respondent No.2.

It is further contended that there are no specific or direct allegations made against the petitioners in the charge sheet. The contents of the same do not disclose the essential ingredients necessary to constitute offences under Section 498-A read with 34 of IPC and Section 4 of the Act. Hence, he prayed to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.4 to 6.

05. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1 as well as learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.2 submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners and the truth or otherwise would come out only after conducting trial by the concerned Court and prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

06. A perusal of the entire record reveals that subsequent to the marriage solemnized in the year 2022, respondent No.2 and accused No.1 lived together happily for about one month. It is evident from the material on record that petitioners–accused Nos.4 and 5 are wife and husband, being the sister and brother-in-law of accused No.1, and are residing separately. Petitioner–accused No.6 is the brother of the father-in-law of respondent No.2, who is stated to be residing at Vavilalapally Village.

07. In Geddam Jhansi and another v. The State of Telangana and others, 2025 INSC 160 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court at Paragraph Nos.31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 and 38 held that:

“31. Invoking criminal process is a serious matter with penal consequences involving coercive measures, which can be permitted only when specific act(s) which constitute offences punishable under the penal code or any other penal statute are alleged or attributed to the accused and a prima facie case is made out. It applies with equal force when criminal laws are invoked in domestic disputes. Crimina