Andhra Pradesh High Court: In a petition filed by accused 2 to 5 seeking quashing of proceedings in criminal case pending before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class cum Principal Junior Civil Judge, S. Harinath N. J., allowed the petition in part and quashed the proceedings against petitioners 3 and 4, holding that vague and omnibus allegations without specific details as to the alleged harassment could not sustain the scrutiny of law, particularly when the petitioners 3 and 4 were staying away from the marital home after their marriage and there were no specific allegations against them to attract the provisions of Section 498A IPC or Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The petitioners 1 and 2 are the parents of the first accused, while petitioners 3 and 4 are the sisters of the first accused. The first accused is embroiled in a marital dispute with the third respondent, who had filed a complaint alleging harassment and dowry demands. The petitioners claim they did not interfere in the marital disputes and have been roped in as accused of harassing them. The petitioners, particularly petitioners 3 and 4 (the sisters of the first accused), submitted that they have been living separately in a different city and part of the country after their marriage and have not been involved in the marital disputes between the first accused and the third respondent. They claimed that the allegations against them in the complaint are vague and lack specific details, and none of the witnesses speak about their involvement in the alleged harassment or dowry demands.
The Counsel for the petitioners argued that the allegations against the petitioners are vague, omnibus, and lack specific details, and that continuation of the case against them would result in harassment for no fault of theirs. Counsel submitted that petitioners 3 and 4 were arraigned as accused only to trouble them, given their distant living arrangement and lack of involvement in the marital disputes.
Upon examining the complaint and the statements of 10 witnesses recorded by the investigating officer, the Court observed that there are no specific allegations against petitioners 3 and 4. The only allegation against them is that they taunted the third respondent for not conceiving, which the court deemed insufficient to sustain the proceedings under Section 498A IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Court noted that petitioners 3 and 4 were staying away from the marital home after their marriage and could not have resorted to any harassment. The allegations against them were considered vague and lacking in specific details, which could not sustain the scrutiny of the law.
The Court held that the case against petitioners 3 and 4 deserves to be quashed due to the lack of specific allegations and insufficient grounds for punishing them for the offences under Section 498A IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the DP Act. Accordingly, the case pending before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class cum Principal Civil Judge, Srikakulam, was quashed against petitioners 3 and 4 alone. The criminal petition was allowed in part.
[Basuru Mani Bhushana Rao v. State, Criminal Petition No: 4896/2023, decided on 24-04-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): M L Neelima
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): Tota Tejeswara Rao and Public Prosecutor
