Syeda Sakina Bibi Syed Sakina vs The State Of Telangana on 20 August, 2025

Telangana High Court

Syeda Sakina Bibi Syed Sakina vs The State Of Telangana on 20 August, 2025

         THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA



             CRIMINAL PETITION No.4307 OF 2025

ORDER :

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the

petitioners/Accused Nos.2, 4 to 6 to quash the proceedings against

them in C.C.No.1605 of 2023 pending on the file of XII- Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District, Rajendra

Nagar registered for the offences punishable under Section 498-A

of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC‘) and under Section 3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘D.P.Act’).

2. The facts of the case are that on 02.03.2023, the

complainant-2nd respondent lodged a complaint stating that her

marriage with petitioner No.1-A.1 was performed on 05.07.2022 as

per muslim rites and customs and at the time of marriage her

parents gave an amount of Rs.1 Lakh, 5 tulas of gold jewelry, 25

tulas of silver and other furniture items. It is further alleged that

under the instructions of her mother-in-law, sisters-in-law and

brother-in-law, her husband-A.1 harassed her mentally and

physically and on the 5th day of marriage, she came to know that
-2-

she is the second wife of A.1. That A.1 performed first marriage

and his first wife was also being harassed physically and mentally

for additional dowry and thereafter the matter was settled before

Mursheed of their community. It is further alleged that her

husband always used to taunt her and her family members for not

bringing sufficient dowry. As such, requested the police to take

necessary action against all the accused. Basing on the said

complaint the police registered the case against the accused for the

said offences.

3. Heard Sri Mohd. Muzaferullah Khan, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. Inspite of service of

notice, none appeared on behalf of 2nd respondent.

4. The contention of learned counsel for petitioners is that

petitioners 1 and 3 are the sisters of A.1, petitioner No.2 is the

mother of A.1, and petitioner No.4 is the brother-in-law of A.1. The

petitioners herein are not residing with A.1 and 2nd respondent.

Petitioner No.2 is the mother of A.1 and she is a senior citizen

suffering with old age ailments and petitioner No.4 is the husband

of petitioner No.3 and they are staying at Chanchalguda with their
-3-

family and at no point of time, the petitioners interfered in the

matrimonial issues of A.1 and 2nd respondent, but they were roped

into this case only to harass them. There are no specific

allegations against these petitioners, as such, requested this Court

to quash the proceedings against these petitioners.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition

stating that there are allegations against these petitioners which

require adjudication and requested this Court to dismiss this

petition.

6. Considering the submissions made by the respective counsel

and the material placed on record, the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 herein

are mother, sisters of A.1 and petitioner No.4 is the husband of

petitioner No.3 and the allegations against these petitioners are

that they have instigated A.1 to harass the 2nd respondent. Except

omnibus allegations there are no specific allegations against these

petitioners. In Neelu Chopra and Another Vs Bharti 1 , the

Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the particulars of offence

committed by each accused and role played by them in committing

the offence need to be stated.

1 (2009) 10 Supreme Court Cases 184
-4-

Pradesh 2, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under :

“20. Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents of the
FIR are perused, it is apparent that there are no allegations
against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra except
casual reference of their names which have been included in the
FIR but mere casual reference of the names of the family
members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active
involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance
against them overlooking the fact borne out of experience that
there is a tendency to involve the entire family members of the
household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial
dispute specially if it happens soon after the wedding.

21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt
observation of this Court recorded in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V.
Prasad [(2000) 3 SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733] wherein also in a
matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court
should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial
dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the
matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their
Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that:

(SCC p. 698, para 12)

“12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in
recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of
which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live
peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt
which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission
of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved

2 (2012) 10 SCC 741
-5-

with the result that those who could have counselled and brought
about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being
arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other
reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging
matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their
defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual
agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it
takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties
lose their ‘young’ days in chasing their ‘cases’ in different courts.”
The view taken by the Judges in that matter was that the courts
would not encourage such disputes.”

7. In the present case, except that the petitioners have

instigated A.1 to harass the 2nd respondent, there are no specific

allegations against them. Mere reference to the names of family

members in a criminal case arising out of the matrimonial dispute

without specific allegations indicating their active role, proceedings

cannot be continued and the accusations against these petitioners

is unsupported by any averment in the complaint specifically

stating the harassment done by these petitioners. Therefore

continuation of proceedings against these petitioners is nothing

but abuse of process of law. As such, the proceedings initiated

against these petitioners are liable to be quashed.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the

proceedings against the petitioners/A.2, 4 to 6 in C.C.No.1605 of
-6-

2023 pending on the file of XII- Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Ranga Reddy District, Rajendra Nagar.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date :20.08.2025
Rds