THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.4602 of 2022

O R D E R :

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.448 of 2020 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Sangareddy, for the offences under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act.

2. Heard Mr. P.Srihari Nath, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2-de facto complainant. Perused the record.

3. The petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4 are the sisters of accused No.1. According to the complaint, the only allegation against the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4 is that they have instigated accused No.1 in harassing the de facto complainant to bring additional dowry.

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 de facto complainant and accused No.1. It is contended that the petitioners herein are married and are staying away from the family of de facto complainant and accused No.1. The present complaint was lodged by the de facto complainant in 2020, whereas, the marriage of de facto complainant with accused No.1 was performed in 2010. The reason for such delay also remained unexplained. It is also contended that 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 Assistant 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, she 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 Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:

(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do n