Telangana High Court
Sambu Raghavendra And 6 Others vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 17 April, 2025
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.361 of 2022
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the
petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 7 seeking to quash the proceedings against
them in C.C.No.8712 of 2021 on the file of the V Additional Metropolitan
Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar, pertaining to Crime No.313 of 2021
of W.P.S. Saroornagar, registered for the offences under Sections 498-A
and 506 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 Ms. Seema Yasmeen, learned counsel representing
Mr. C.Vikram Chandra, 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.1 is the husband of de facto
complainant. The petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 are the parents and
married sisters of petitioner-accused No.1. The petitioners-accused
Nos.6 and 7 are the husbands of petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5.
2
4. The gist of the complaint is that the marriage of petitioner-accused
No.1 was performed with the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant on
27.04.2018. At the time of marriage, certain amount of dowry was given.
They lived happily for some days. Thereafter, the petitioners-accused
Nos.1 to 7 harassed the de facto complainant physically and mentally
demanding additional dowry and they threatened to perform another
marriage of the petitioner-accused No.1, if she will not bring additional
dowry. On 14.06.2020, some unknown persons entered the house of
de facto complainant, made a galata and warned that they will kill her
and her parents, if she does not sign divorce papers.
5. 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 petitioner-
accused No.1. It is contended that the petitioners-accused Nos.4 to 7 are
staying away from the de facto complainant and petitioner-accused No.1,
therefore, there was no occasion or necessity for them to harass the
de facto complainant. It is further contended that the marriage of
petitioner-accused No.1 with de facto complainant had happened on
27.04.2018; the alleged incident of threatening had occurred on
14.06.2020, however, the present complaint was lodged on 30.07.2021.
The reason for such inordinate delay in lodging the complaint remained
3
unexplained. It is further contended that as per the complaint, it is stated
that on 14.06.2020, some unknown persons have threatened to kill the
de facto complainant and her parents, if she does not sign divorce
papers. However, the said persons were not identified during the course
of investigation by the Police. It is also contended that except bald
allegations, no specific overt acts are attributed to the petitioners herein.
Thus, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
contended that all the accused, including the petitioners herein, have
harassed the de facto complainant after her marriage with petitioner-
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.
7. 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
4nature 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.
8. 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 without
an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2)
of the Code;
1
1992 SCC (Cri) 426
5
(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.
9. In the judgment of Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State
of Telangana and another 2, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, at paragraph
Nos.18, 25, 31 and 32 held that:
“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.
25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a
criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without
specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be
nipped in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of
judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all
the members of the husband’s family when domestic disputes
arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and
sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or
particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal
prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to
prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and
avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. In
the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of
the family of appellant No.1 have been living in different cities
and have not resided in the matrimonial house of appellant2
2024 INSC 953
6No.1 and respondent No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be
dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an
abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific
allegations made against each of them.
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.”
10. 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.
7
11. In the present case, admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to
the marriage between the de facto complainant and petitioner-accused
No.1. On a perusal of the allegations made in the FIR or charge sheet,
even if they are taken on face value, no substantial and specific
allegations have been made against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 7,
except stating that they have harassed the de facto complainant by
demanding additional dowry. The de facto complainant has not provided
any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment
meted out by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 7. Though the marriage of
petitioner-accused No.1 with de facto complainant had happened on
27.04.2018 and the alleged incident of threatening had occurred on
14.06.2020, the present complaint was lodged on 30.07.2021. The
reason for such inordinate delay in lodging the complaint remained
unexplained. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioners-accused Nos.4
to 7 are staying away from de facto complainant and petitioner-accused
No.1.
12. As seen from the list of witnesses examined by the Police, there
are eight witnesses. Out of which, three are de facto complainant and her
parents, who are interested witnesses. Two witnesses are neighbours.
Remaining three witnesses are Investigation Officers.
8
13. With regard to the alleged incident, dated 14.06.2020, it is stated in
the complaint that some unknown persons have threatened to kill
de facto complainant and her parents, if she does not sign divorce
papers. However, said persons were not identified by the Police. There
are no specific allegations against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 7 as
to in what manner they have threatened the de facto complainant
causing criminal intimidation. Hence, the petitioners cannot be subjected
to prosecution, merely basing on the bald averments.
14. For the foregoing reasons and in view of the judgments 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.
15. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the
proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 7 in C.C.No.8712
of 2021 on the file of the V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,
Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date: 17.04.2025
rev
[ad_1]
Source link