Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1440 (TS)

Vudutha Hanmaiah v. State of Telangana

2025-11-11

JUVVADI SRIDEVI

body2025
ORDER : 1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.920 of 2024 on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Karimnagar. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under section 498-A, 323, 506 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘The Act’). 2. Heard Mr.G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5, Ms.V.Vaishali, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the record. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the accused No.2 is the father-in-law, accused No.3 is the mother-in-law, accused No.4 is the sister-in-law, and accused No.5 is the husband of the sister- in-law. The 2 nd respondent/de-facto complainant married accused No.1 , the son of accused Nos.2 and 3, on 06.12.2020 according to Hindu customs. After marriage, all the accused allegedly harassed the complainant both mentally and physically, demanding additional dowry. It is also alleged that a ccused No.1 developed bad habits such as drinking alcohol and assaulted the complainant, suspecting her fidelity , influenced by the other accused. Consequently, the complainant filed a case against them for offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 and only omnibus and vague allegations are made against the parents, sister and brother-in-law of accused No.1. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 has filed this false case with an ulterior motive to harass the petitioners by implicating them in the present case. Further, no dates of alleged harassment were mentioned either in the complaint or in the charge sheet. Further, the marriage of respondent No.2 was performed in the year, 2020 and she never shared roof with petitioner Nos.3 and 4 and left the company of the accused No.1 on 28.10.2022 and with a malafide intention, to harass the petitioners, lodged a complaint on 10.07.2023. There was endless harassment from respondent No.2, due to which the health of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and avocation of petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are spoiled. 5. There was endless harassment from respondent No.2, due to which the health of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and avocation of petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are spoiled. 5. While seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State of Telangana and another , AIR 2025 SC 173 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court of India held as under: “ 18 . A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that appellant No.1 harassed her and that appellant Nos.2 to 6 instigated him to do so, respondent No.2 has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment. She has also not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations. 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. 31. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667 held that the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realties into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment by the husband's close relatives who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. 32. The allegations of harassment by the husband's close relatives who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. 32. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FIR No.82 of 2022 filed by respondent No.2 was initiated with ulterior motives to settle personal scores and grudges against appellant No.1 and his family members i.e., appellant Nos.2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present case at hand falls within category (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lal. Therefore, the High Court, in the present case, erred in not exercising the powers available to it under Section 482 CrPC and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the Court's process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants." 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State and Ms.V.Vaishali, learned counsel for respondent No.2 in one voice submits that there are specific allegations against the petitioners and it is not a fit case for quashing and there are triable issues and the truth or otherwise would come out only after conducting trial by the concerned Court. Hence, prays to dismiss this Criminal Petition. 7. A perusal of the record discloses that the petitioners- accused Nos.2 and 3 are father and mother, accused No.4 is sister and accused No.5 is brother-in-law of accused No.1. The petitioner Nos.3 and 4 herein never resided under one roof with respondent No.2. There are no specific instances with regard to the harassment meted out by respondent No.2 in the hands of accused, who are immediate family members of accused No.1 and they are falsely implicated without any basis. Only vague and omnibus allegations are made against the petitioners and no material was placed by the prosecution with regard to specific instances and being immediate family members of her husband, respondent No.2 roped them in this case and there are no specific overt acts established against the petitioners. 8. Except stating that there was a mental and physical harassment caused by the accused, there are no specific details or descriptive particulars of instances of harassment caused by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 and no medical certificate is produced to prove the essential ingredients of Section 323 of IPC. 8. Except stating that there was a mental and physical harassment caused by the accused, there are no specific details or descriptive particulars of instances of harassment caused by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 and no medical certificate is produced to prove the essential ingredients of Section 323 of IPC. Such generalized and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularized allegations cannot form basis for criminal prosecution. 9. Making vague and generalized allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498-A of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Therefore, the Courts are bound to ensure whether there is any prima-facie case against the husband and his family members before prosecuting the husband and his family members. Hence, the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them. 10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, including the settled principle of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the above decision, this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 amounts to abuse of process of law. Therefore, the proceedings against them are liable to be quashed. 11. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 in C.C.No.920 of 2024 on the file of learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar, are hereby quashed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.