General and sweeping accusations against family members in matrimonial disputes, without specific allegations of active involvement, are an abuse of the process of law and warrant quashing of proceedings to prevent unnecessary harassment of innocent relatives.

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 5 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C. No.418 of 2018 on the file of learned Junior Civil Judge, Sirpur, for the offences alleged against the petitioners under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short D.P. Act).

Heard Sri B.Nageshwar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State and Sri Kalyan Chippakurthi, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner Nos.3 and 4, who are arrayed as accused Nos.4 and 5, are the sisters-in-law of de-facto complainant and that there are no specific allegations leveled against these petitioners with regard to the alleged harassment made against the de-facto complainant. He further submitted that he has not pressed the case against the accused Nos.2 and 3, who are the parents of the Accused No.1. He further submitted that petitioners were employed and were not residing with the de-facto complainant and accused No.1. He further submitted that the allegations made in the complaint are false and omnibus. The contents of the complaint do not reveal any specific incidents of harassment alleged against the petitioners herein. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the service certificates of petitioner Nos.3 and 4 i.e., accused Nos.4 and 5 pertain to a subsequent period to that of the dates of harassment. He further argued that there are specific incidents of harassment alleged against the petitioner Nos.3 and 4 herein.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the only allegations against the sisters-in-law is that they used to harass the de-facto complainant mentally. Hence, he prayed to pass appropriate orders.

Perused the record.

The contents of the complaint and recitals of the charge sheet point out that the accused Nos. 4 and 5, who are sisters of accused No.1, are alleged to have subjected the de-facto complainant to mental torture. No specific incidents of harassment are narrated in the complaint. The alleged acts of petitioner which resulted in alleged mental torture, are not mentioned. But for the said averment, there are no other specific allegations levelled against the petitioners herein either in the complaint or in the charge sheet. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the service certificate issued in favour of the petitioner Nos.3 and 4 i.e., accused Nos.4 and 5 show that they lived away from the de facto Complainant and accused No.1. The service certificate of Kumari Gunda Sri Teja i.e., petitioner No.4/accused No.3 herein is dated 24.07.2021 and her employment period is shown from 04.04.2018 to 24.07.2021 and that the date of complaint is 26.07.2018. The period of harassment is prior to the date of complaint i.e., 02.04.2018. It is contended that the incident of harassment pertained to the period prior to that mentioned in the service certificates. So also, in the case of other service certificate of petitioner i.e., service certificate of Kumari Gunda Samatha, petitioner No.3/accused No.4 herein dated 21.01.2022, reveals that her service period is from 04.01.2019 to 21.01.2022 and the dates of alleged harassment are also much prior to the said period of service of the petitioners. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondents contends that there is no truth in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and that the petitioners were very much residing with the de-facto complainant and accused No.1 and were harassing her. However, the complaint does not disclose any specific allegations against the petitioners herein. So also, the recitals of the charge sheet also do not p