THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.3048 of 2023

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.2 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.237 of 2022 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge cum VIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘the Act’).

02. Heard Mr.S.Gowtham, learned counsel representing Ms.T.Swetcha, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.2, Sri M.Srinivas, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the record.

03. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage of the respondent No.2 with the brother of accused No.2 was solemnized about twelve years ago. After marriage respondent No.2 joined the family members of her husband at Nellore and the marriage was consummated at her in-laws house. She lead happy marital life for a few days only and thereafter the petitioners-A1 to A3 started harassing respondent No.2 for additional dowry and always used to quarrel with her for petty issues. Later the petitioners-A2 and 3 started influencing A1/husband of respondent No.2 and in turn he used to harass the respondent No.2 mentally and physically. Upon being influenced by the petitioner herein his brother used to harass respondent No.2 and also demanded additional dowry from her parents. Hence, the respondent No.2 filed the present case for the offences under Sections

498-A of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Act.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged offences and that he never harassed the respondent No.2. It is submitted that the petitioner never lived under the same roof and hence the petitioner is no way concerned with the allegations. The respondent No.2 and her husband are residing separately since 2018. There are no specific allegations except stating that additional dowry was demanded by the petitioner and other family members and there are no details anywhere in the complaint about demand or receipt of additional dowry. The petitioner-accused No.2 is the brother of accused No.1 and never interfered in the matrimonial issues of respondent No.2 and the accused No.1. The petitioner never demanded any dowry from respondent No.2 or from her parents. There are no specific allegations against the petitioner-accused No.2. The contents of the complaint or charge sheet do not disclose the required ingredients to attract the offences under Sections 498-A of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Act. While seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.2, learned counsel for the petitioner 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:

"24. Insofar as appellant Nos.2 to 6 are concerned, we find that they have no connection to the matter at hand and have been dragged into the web of crime without any rhyme or reason. A perusal of the FIR would indicate that no substantial and specific allegations have been made against appellant Nos.2 to 6 other than stating that they used to instigate appellant No.1 for demanding more dowry. It is also an admitted fact that they never resided with the couple namely appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 and their children. Appellant Nos.2

and 3 resided together at Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh. Appellant Nos.4 to 6 live in Nellore, Bengaluru and Guntur respectively.

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,