Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 155 (TS)

Dharani Jerusha Ruth v. State of Telangana

2025-03-20

JUVVADI SRIDEVI

body2025
ORDER : JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 4 82 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.9490 of 2021 on the file of the IX Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XXIX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar, pertaining to Crime No.881 of 2021 of P.S. Uppal, registered for the offences under Section 4 98-A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. No representation on behalf of respondent No.2. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner-accused No.3 is the sister of accused No.1 and the petitioner-accused No.4 is the husband of the petitioner-accused No.3. The gist of the complaint is that the 2 nd respondent-de facto complainant was married to accused No.1 on 08.04.2015 and it was an arranged marriage. At the time of marriage, certain amount of dowry was given. They lived happily for few days. Thereafter, on the instigation of accused No.2-mother of accused No.1 and petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4, accused No.1 started harassing the de facto complainant physically and mentally demanding additional dowry. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the case by the de facto complainant, only to wreck vengeance in view of the matrimonial disputes between the de facto complainant and accused No.1. It is contended that the petitioners herein are staying away from the de facto complainant and accused No.1, therefore, there was no occasion or necessity for them to harass the de facto complainant. The present complaint was filed in 2021, whereas, the marriage of de facto complainant with accused No.1 was performed in 2015 and if there was really harassment from the date of marriage, the de facto complainant should have complained much earlier. The reason for such delay also remained unexplained. It is also contended that except bald allegations, no specific overt acts are attributed to them. Thus, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. 5. The reason for such delay also remained unexplained. It is also contended that except bald allegations, no specific overt acts are attributed to them. Thus, 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 from the date of 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. 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 not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; (2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code; (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused; (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code; (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 8. In the judgment of Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State of Telangana and another , [ 2024 INSC 953 ] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court, at paragraph Nos.31 and 32 held that: “ 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 . 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.” 9. In numerous cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with similar cases held that making vague and generalised 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. 10. In the present case, admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to the marriage between the de facto complainant and accused No.1 and it was also an arranged marriage. 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. 10. In the present case, admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to the marriage between the de facto complainant and accused No.1 and it was also an arranged marriage. A perusal of the record would indicate that no substantial and specific allegations have been made against the petitioners herein, other than stating that they instigated accused No.1 in harassing the de facto complainant by demanding more dowry. Though the marriage had happened in the year 2015, the present complaint was lodged in the year 2021. The reason for delay in lodging the complaint remained unexplained. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioners herein, who are the sister and brother-in-law of accused No.1, are staying away from the family of de facto complainant and accused No.1. As seen from the record, it is clearly evident that even before the marriage of accused No.1 with the de facto complainant, the petitioner- accused No.3 is living separately from her family on her job purpose. The de facto complainant and accused No.1 have set-up a separate family at Hyderabad. The petitioners cannot be subjected to prosecution, merely basing on the bald averments of harassment. 11. For the foregoing reasons and in view of the judgment referred to above, the petitioners 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. Hence, the proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. 12. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4 in C.C.No.9490 of 2021 on the file of the IX Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XXIX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.