Telangana High Court
Mallepally Sugnanamma vs The State Of Telangana on 7 February, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8391 of 2023
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (for short
‘Cr.P.C‘) by the petitioner/accused No.2, seeking to
quash the proceedings against her in C.C.No.2728 of
2021 on the file of IV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,
Medchal Malkajgiri District (for short, the trial Court),
registered for the offences punishable under Sections
498-A, 323 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act.
2. Heard Mr.T.Pradhyumna Kumar Reddy, learned
counsel representing petitioner, Mr.E.Ganesh, learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent
No.1/State and Mr.P.Animi Reddy, learned counsel for
respondent No.2. Perused the record.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage of
2nd respondent and A-1 was performed on 16.02.2020.
Their engagement was performed on 08.12.2019 and at
2
EVV,J
Crl.P.No.8391 of 2023
that time, the parents of 2nd respondent gave Rs 2,00,000/-
cash, Rs. 30,000/- for clothes and 3 Tulas of gold to the
accused as dowry and at the time of marriage, 2.5kg silver
ornaments, 10 lakhs cash for household articles and
65 Tulas of gold was given as dowry, apart from of all
these, the parents of the 2nd respondent spent
Rs.38,00,000/- for marriage. After two days of marriage,
it is alleged that all the accused harassed the
2nd respondent for an additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/-
for purchase of a plot. Later, 2nd respondent joined her
husband A-1 at Singapore and after couple of days, A-1
went home in a drunken condition and beat her and forced
her to ask for more money from her parents. Later, the
2nd respondent conceived and fell ill but even after that A-1
fought with her and sent her back to India as he was not
interested in bearing medical expenses of the
2nd respondent and after that A-1 never called her and due
to the mental harassment meted out by her, she underwent
abortion. A-1 blamed the 2nd respondent and never
responded to her calls and intentionally blocked her phone
numbers and her parents phone numbers and even sent a
3
EVV,J
Crl.P.No.8391 of 2023
legal notice. When the 2nd respondent and her parents
went to house of A-2 to ask about the same, she did not
open the door and insulted them in front of their
neighbors. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent gave a report
against A-1 to A-4 and the same was registered as Crime
No.48 of 2021 on the file of Medipally Police Station, after
completion of investigation, the police filed the present
charge-sheet for offences u/s 498-A, 323 IPC and 3 & 4 of
4. Learned senior counsel representing petitioner/A2
contended that the petitioner/A2 is innocent of all the
offences alleged against her and she had been falsely
implicated in the present case. The Petitioner herein is
mother-in-law of 2nd respondent. He further contended that
immediately after marriage of A-1 and 2nd respondent on
16.02.2020, A1 went to Singapore on 01.03.2020 and
thereafter, the 2nd respondent went to her parents’ house
until she joined A-1 on 20.03.2020 at Singapore. Therefore,
apart from 16.02.2020 to 01.03.2020, the 2nd respondent
never stayed under one roof with the Petitioner/A2 herein.
4
EVV,J
Crl.P.No.8391 of 2023
He further contended that there are bald and omnibus
allegation against the petitioner that after two days of
marriage, A-1 to A-4 harassed the 2nd respondent for
additional dowry. He further contended that the
2nd respondent is an educated lady, having studied M.Sc
Bio-Technology and she would not have kept quiet for such
a long time if the allegations that are made in the charge-
sheet with regard to harassment or demand of dowry were
to be true.
5. Learned counsel further submits that Section 322
IPC which defines “voluntarily causing grievous hurt” reads
as follows:
“Whoever voluntarily causes hurt, if the hurt which he
intends to cause or knows himself to be likely to cause
is grievous hurt, and if the hurt which he causes is
grievous hurt, is said “voluntarily to cause grievous
hurt.”
He further submits that even a bare reading of the charge-
sheet, would make it clear that Section 323 IPC does not
attract to the Petitioner herein. There is no allegation as
against the Petitioner herein with regard to voluntarily
5
EVV,J
Crl.P.No.8391 of 2023
causing grievous hurt to the 2nd respondent. The said
allegation is against A-1 during their stay in Singapore.
6. He further submits that 2nd respondent has gone to
an extent of even naming aunt of A-1 (arrayed as A-4), who
acted as a mediator for their marriage, which itself speaks
volumes about the attitude of the 2nd respondent in falsely
implicating the family members of A-1 out of personal
vendetta.
7. He further submits that Section 498-A IPC does not
attract to the petitioner herein which reads as follows:
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.
6
EVV,J
Crl.P.No.8391 of 2023
8. Learned counsel further submits that it is alleged by
the 2nd respondent that when she went to the house of the
petitioner along with her parents/LW2 and LW3, the
petitioner did not open the door of the house, thus,
insulted them in front of the neighbours and even taking
into account the above stated allegation to be true, it won’t
amount to cruelty as defined under Section 498-A of IPC.
9. Learned counsel further submits that the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the Judgments rendered in Kahkashan
Kausar @ Sonam and others vs State of Bihar and
others 1, observed that:-
12. Before we delve into greater detail on the nature
and content of allegations made, it becomes pertinent to
mention that incorporation of section 498A of IPC was
aimed at preventing cruelty committed upon a woman
by her husband and her in-laws, by facilitating rapid
state intervention. However, it is equally true, that in
recent times, matrimonial litigation in the country has
also increased significantly and there is a greater
disaffection and friction surrounding the institution of
marriage, now, more than ever. This has resulted in an
increased tendency to employ provisions such as
498A IPC as instruments to settle personal scores
against the husband and his relatives.
18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate
that this court has at numerous instances expressed
concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the
increased tendency of implicating relatives of the1
2022 SCC OnLine SC 162
7
EVV,J
Crl.P.No.8391 of 2023husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing
the long term ramifications of a trial on the
complainant as well as the accused. It is further
manifest from the said judgments that false implication
by way of general omnibus allegations made in the
course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would
result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this
court by way of its judgments has warned the courts
from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the
husband when no prima facie case is made out against
them.
19. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of
the contents of the FIR dated 01.04.19, it is revealed
that general allegations are levelled against the
Appellants. The complainant alleged that ‘all accused
harassed her mentally and threatened her of
terminating her pregnancy’. Furthermore, no specific
and distinct allegations have been made against either
of the Appellants herein, i.e., none of the Appellants
have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of
the general allegations made against them. This simply
leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the
role played by each accused in furtherance of the
offence. The allegations are therefore general and
omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out
on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is
concerned, since he has not appealed against the order
of the High court, we have not examined the veracity of
allegations made against him. However, as far as the
Appellants are concerned, the allegations made against
them being general and omnibus, do not warrant
prosecution.
22. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant
circumstances and in the absence of any specific role
attributed to the accused appellants, it would be unjust
if the Appellants are forced to go through the
tribulations of a trial, i.e., general and omnibus
allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the
relatives of the complainant’s husband are forced to
undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this court in
varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an
eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the
accused, and such an exercise must therefore be
discouraged.
8
EVV,J
Crl.P.No.8391 of 2023
In Abhishek vs State of Madhya Pradesh 2
13. Instances of a husband’s family members filing a
petition to quash criminal proceedings launched
against them by his wife in the midst of matrimonial
disputes are neither a rarity nor of recent origin.
Precedents aplenty abound on this score. We may now
take note of some decisions of particular relevance.
Recently, in Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v. State
of Bihar [(2022) 6 SCC 599], this Court had occasion to
deal with a similar situation where the High Court
had refused to quash a FIR registered for various
offences, including Section 498A IPC. Noting that the
foremost issue that required determination was
whether allegations made against the in-laws were
general omnibus allegations which would be liable to
be quashed, this Court referred to earlier decisions
wherein concern was expressed over the misuse of
Section 498A IPC and the increased tendency to
implicate relatives of the husband in matrimonial
disputes. This Court observed that false implications
by way of general omnibus allegations made in the
course of matrimonial disputes, if left unchecked,
would result in misuse of the process of law. On the
facts of that case, it was found that no specific
allegations were made against the in-laws by the wife
and it was held that allowing their prosecution in the
absence of clear allegations against the in-laws would
result in an abuse of the process of law. It was also
noted that a criminal trial, leading to an eventual
acquittal, would inflict severe scars upon the accused
and such an exercise ought to be discouraged.
14. In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [(2010) 7
SCC 667], this Court noted that the tendency to
implicate the husband and all his immediate relations
is also not uncommon in complaints filed under
Section 498A IPC. It was observed that the Courts have
to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with
these complaints and must take pragmatic realities
2
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083
9
EVV,J
Crl.P.No.8391 of 2023
into consideration while dealing with matrimonial
cases, as allegations of harassment by husband’s close
relations, who were living in different cities and never
visited or rarely visited the place where the
complainant resided, would add an entirely different
complexion and such allegations would have to be
scrutinised with great care and circumspection.
15. Earlier, in Neelu Chopra v. Bharti [(2009) 10 SCC
184], this Court observed that the mere mention of
statutory provisions and the language thereof, for
lodging a complaint, is not the ‘be all and end all’ of
the matter, as what is required to be brought to the
notice of the Court is the particulars of the offence
committed by each and every accused and the role
played by each and every accused in the commission of
that offence. These observations were made in the
context of a matrimonial dispute involving Section
498A IPC.
16. Of more recent origin is the decision of this Court
in Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P. (Criminal Appeal No.
2341 of 2023, decided on 08.08.2023) on the legal
principles applicable apropos Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Therein, it was observed that when an accused comes
before the High Court, invoking either the inherent
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or the extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to
get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed,
essentially on the ground that such proceedings are
manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the
ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance, then in such
circumstances, the High Court owes a duty to look into
the FIR with care and a little more closely. It was
further observed that it will not be enough for the
Court to look into the averments made in the
FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining
whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the
alleged offence are disclosed or not as, in frivolous or
vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look
into many other attending circumstances emerging
from the record of the case over and above the
averments and, if need be, with due care and
circumspection, to try and read between the lines.
10
EVV,J
Crl.P.No.8391 of 2023
17. In Bhajan Lal (supra), this Court had set out, by
way of illustration, the broad categories of cases in
which the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
could be exercised. Para 102 of the decision reads as
follows:
‘102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter
XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this
Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of
the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which
we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the
following categories of cases by way of illustration
wherein such power could be exercised 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
FIR 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.
11
EVV,J
Crl.P.No.8391 of 2023
(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 Act concerned
(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 Act concerned, 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.’
19. The most significant aspect to be taken note of
presently is that Bhawna admittedly parted ways with
her matrimonial home and her in-laws in February,
2009, be it voluntarily or otherwise, but she did not
choose to make a complaint against them in relation
to dowry harassment till the year 2013. Surprisingly,
FIR No. 56 dated 09.02.2013 records that the
occurrence of the offence was from 02.07.2007 to
05.02.2013, but no allegations were made by Bhawna
against the appellants after she left her matrimonial
home in February, 2009. Significantly, Bhawna got
married to Nimish on 02.07.2007 at Indore and went
to Mumbai with him on 08.07.2007. Her interaction
with her in-laws thereafter seems to have been only
during festivals and is stated to be about 3 or 4 times.
Sourabh, an architect, was stationed at Delhi since
the year 2007 and no specific allegation was ever
made against him by Bhawna. In fact, she merely
made a general allegation to the effect that he also
tortured her mentally and physically for dowry. No
specific instance was cited by her in that regard or as
to how he subjected her to such harassment from
Delhi. Similarly, Abhishek became a judicial officer 6
or 7 months after her marriage and seems to have had
no occasion to be with Bhawna and Nimish at Mumbai.
12
EVV,J
Crl.P.No.8391 of 2023
His exposure to her was only when she came to visit
her in-laws during festivals. Surprisingly, Bhawna
alleges that at the time of his own marriage, Abhishek
demanded that Bhawna and her parents should
provide him with a car and Rs. 2 lakhs in cash. Why
he would make such a demand for dowry, even if he
was inclined to commit such an illegality, from his
sister-in-law at the time of his own marriage is rather
incongruous and difficult to comprehend. Further, the
fact that Bhawna confessed to making a vicious
complaint against Abhishek to the High Court clearly
shows that her motives were not clean insofar as her
brother-in-law, Abhishek, is concerned, and she clearly
wanted to wreak vengeance against her in-laws. The
allegation levelled by Bhawna against her mother-in-
law, Kusum Lata, with regard to how she taunted her
when she wore a maxi is wholly insufficient to
constitute cruelty in terms of Section 498A IPC.
10. Learned counsel further submits that the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the Judgment rendered in K.Subba Rao
v. The State of Telangana, observed that:-
“6. The Courts should be careful in proceeding against
the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to
matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives
of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of
omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their
involvement in the crime are made out.”
Learned counsel further submits that the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the Judgment rendered in Geeta
Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, specifically
held that the continuation of proceedings against whom
specific instances of harassment are not alleged in the
13
EVV,J
Crl.P.No.8391 of 2023
charge-sheet or in the statements, would amount to abuse
of process of Law.
11. Learned counsel further submits that the in Preethi
Gupta and another Vs. State of Jharkhand and
another, the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically
concluded that the implication of the relatives in the
complaint is only meant to harass and to humiliate them
and permitting complainant to pursue such complaint
would be an abuse of process of law. Having said so,
The Apex Court went on to quash the complaint on the
ground that it would be unfair to compel the accused to
undergo the rigmarole of a criminal trial
Before parting with this case, we would like to observe
that a serious relook of the entire provision is
warranted by the legislation. It is also a matter of
common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the
incident are reflected in a large number of complaints.
The tendency of over implication is also reflected in a
very large number of cases.
35. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for
all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may
also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering
of ignominy. Unfortunately a large number of these
complaints have not only flooded the courts but also
have led to enormous social unrest affecting peace,
harmony and happiness of the society. It is high time
that the legislature must take into consideration the
pragmatic realities and make suitable changes in the
existing law. It is imperative for the legislature to take
into consideration the informed public opinion and the
pragmatic realities in consideration and make
14
EVV,J
Crl.P.No.8391 of 2023
necessary changes in the relevant provisions of law.
He further submits that the facts of the present case
are in total consonance with guidelines No. 5 and 7 laid
down in State of Haryana & Others v. Bhajan Lal &
Others 3, which read as follows:
“(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint
are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person.com ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused…
…(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide andior 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. He further submits that all the facts have been
misrepresented and the allegations that have been made
are fabricated and lacks any corroboration and the
complaint contains mere repetition without any material
evidence collected and the 2nd respondent has implicated
the Petitioner herein with an ulterior motive for wrecking
vengeance on the Petitioner, as such continuation of the
proceedings in C.C.No.2728 of 2021 before the trial Court
is nothing abuse of the process of Law and the same is
3
1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335
15
EVV,J
Crl.P.No.8391 of 2023
liable to be quashed. Therefore, he prayed to quash all
further proceedings against the petitioner/A2 in
C.C.No.2728 of 2021 before the trial Court.
13. On the other hand, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions made
by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended
that unless and until a full-fledged trial is conducted,
truth cannot be elicited and interference of this Court at
this stage is unwarranted. Therefore, he prayed to
dismiss the Criminal Petition.
14. Learned counsel for 2nd respondent/complainant also
argued in similar lines and sought for dismissal of Criminal
Petition.
15. Having regard to the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the respective parties and upon
perusing the material available on record, this Court is of
the opinion that the matter requires adjudication at length.
The trial Court, after conducting a full-fledged trial and
upon examining the oral and documentary evidence
16
EVV,J
Crl.P.No.8391 of 2023
available on record, is directed to pass appropriate orders
as expeditiously as possible. Therefore, this Court is not
inclined to entertain the Criminal Petition at this stage.
16. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
However, the appearance of the petitioner/A2 before the
trial Court, is dispensed with for each and every
adjournment unless specifically required by the trial Court.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_______________________
E.V. VENUGOPAL, J
Date: 07.02.2025.
KRL