Telangana High Court
Kalyani vs The State Of Telangana on 15 April, 2025
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9920 of 2022
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the
petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 seeking to quash the proceedings against
them in C.C.No.1437 of 2021 on the file of the Special Judicial First
Class Magistrate (Prohibition and Excise Offences) at Nalgonda,
pertaining to Crime No.47 of 2021 of W.P.S. Nalgonda, registered for the
offences under Sections 498-A, 420, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal
Code (for short ‘IPC‘) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
(for short ‘the Act’).
2. Heard Mr. S.Ganesh, 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. When the matter is taken up, it is submitted by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor that the petitioner-accused No.3, who is the father of accused
No.1, has expired.
4. Recording the aforesaid submission, this Criminal Petition is
dismissed as abated, insofar as petitioner-accused No.3 is concerned.
2
5. The petitioner-accused No.2 is the mother and the petitioner-
accused No.4 is the brother of accused No.1. The gist of the complaint is
that the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant was married to accused
No.1 on 06.10.2017 and it was an arranged marriage. At the time of
marriage, certain amount of dowry was given. Soon after their marriage,
accused No.1 left to USA and she stayed at her matrimonial home along
with her in-laws. On the instigation of the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and
4, accused No.1 harassed her physically and mentally demanding
additional dowry. On 26.01.2018, the de facto complainant left to USA.
Within few months, she got pregnant. When the Doctor revealed that she
was pregnant with a baby girl, accused No.1 and his family members
pressurized to terminate her pregnancy. After the birth of baby girl on
16.04.2019, accused No.1 picked up a quarrel with her and tried to kill
her. Due to such unbearable harassment, the de facto complainant tried
to commit suicide, but her neighbours rescued her. Thereafter, on
16.01.2021, accused No.1 sent de facto complainant to India by keeping
her certificates, laptop, silver and gold ornaments with him. Though
panchayats were held before the elders, accused No.1 and his family
members did not change their attitude. Hence, the present complaint.
6. 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
3
matrimonial disputes between the de facto complainant and accused
No.1. It is contended that accused No.1 and de facto complainant have
filed a petition seeking divorce and by order, dated 20.12.2022, the
Family Court at USA has granted divorce, dissolving the marriage
between accused No.1 and de facto complainant. It is further contended
that the petitioner-accused No.2 is a resident of Nalgonda. The
petitioner-accused No.4 is a Doctor by profession and he is residing at
USA, prior to the marriage of accused No.1 itself. Even he has not
attended the marriage of accused No.1 and de facto complainant. Within
four months of the marriage, the de facto complainant left to USA and
soon after returning from USA, she has lodged the present complaint
against the petitioners herein. Hence, the petitioners have nothing to do
with the offences alleged against them.
7. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners
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. It is further
contended that though the de facto complainant returned to India on
16.01.2021, the present complaint was lodged on 26.06.2021. If really
there was harassment, 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
4
attributed to them. The ingredients of offences alleged against the
petitioners are not made out. Thus, he prayed to quash the proceedings
against the petitioners.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-de facto
complainant has filed counter affidavit stating that 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. There are specific
allegations against the petitioners herein. Hence, prayed to dismiss the
petition.
9. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
contended that there are specific allegations against the petitioners
herein. 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.
10. 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
5imprisonment 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.
11. In the judgment of State of Haryana and others v. CH.Bhajan Lal
and others 1, 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 without1
1992 SCC (Cri) 426
6an 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.
12. In the judgment of Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State
of Telangana and another 2, 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.”
2
2024 INSC 953
7
13. 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.
14. 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. On the face of the record, it is evident
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 additional dowry.
Though the marriage had happened in the year 2017 and the de facto
complainant returned to India on 16.01.2021, the present complaint was
lodged on 26.06.2021. The reason for such delay in lodging the
complaint remained unexplained.
8
15. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 4,
who are the mother and brother 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 de facto complainant, the petitioner-accused No.4 is living
separately from his family on his job purpose. The de facto complainant
and accused No.1 have set-up a separate family at USA. There is no
dishonest or fraudulent intention on the part of petitioners-accused Nos.2
and 4; there are no specific allegations against them as to in what
manner they threatened the de facto complainant causing criminal
intimidation and as to how they have caused hurt to the de facto
complainant. No medical certificate is produced by the prosecution to
prove the injuries suffered by the de facto complainant. Hence, the
petitioners cannot be subjected to prosecution, merely basing on the bald
averments.
16. For the foregoing reasons and in view of the judgments referred to
above, the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 4 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.
9
17. Insofar as the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 4 are concerned, this
Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against them in
C.C.No.1437 of 2021 on the file of the Special Judicial First Class
Magistrate (Prohibition and Excise Offences) at Nalgonda.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date: 15.04.2025
Note: Furnish C.C. by 24.04.2025.
B/o.
rev