Appeal
2. In the present appeal the appellants have challenged the order passed by the High Court whereby their petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing proceedings in C.C. No. 359 of 2 2016 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class for Prohibition & Excise Cases, Guntur was dismissed.
3. The appellant No.1 (A4) is the sister-in-law of the de-facto complainant, appellant No. 2 (A5) is the husband of A4 and appellant No. 3 (A6) is the father-in-law of appellant No. 1 (A4).
4. The marriage between de-facto complainant (respondent no. 2) with Challa Poornananda Reddy (A1) was solemnised on 24.05.2014 at Guntur. After five months of the marriage, the de-facto complainant left the company of her husband and joined her parents to live at her parental house at Vidyanagar, Guntur. On persuasion, she joined her husband but again went back to her parental house and this act continued for some more time compelling the husband to send a legal notice followed by a petition for restitution of conjugal rights on 18.02.2015. During the pendency of this proceeding, she lodged a complaint before the concerned police on 13.02.2016. However, on intervention of elders a compromise was arrived at on 02.04.2015 and the husband (A1) withdrew the case of restitution of conjugal rights and the de-facto complainant also withdrew her complaint before the concerned police.
5. She later left for USA without intimating the husband or his family members and the dispute continued. The husband moved a petition for dissolution of marriage on 21.06.2016 and as a counterblast she again lodged a police complaint bearing FIR No. 79 of 2016 against six accused persons including the present appellants.
7. The High Court refused to allow the quashing petition on the ground that there are allegations against the appellants for which a trial is required and the same cannot be disbelieved at this stage.
Deprecated practice involving the relatives of husband for offence under section 498A IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
9. There is no denial of the fact that the appellants reside at Hyderabad whereas the de-facto complainant stayed at Guntur in her marital house. There is no specific date as to when the present appellants visited Guntur and joined accused nos. 1 to 3 in demanding dowry from de-facto complainant. Considering the growing trend of the dowry victim arraigning the relatives of the husband, this Court in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. has deprecated the practice involving the relatives of the husband for the offence under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The following has been held in para 18:
“18. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ramesh case [(2005) 3 SCC 507: 2005 SCC (Cri) 735] had been pleased to hold that the bald allegations made against the sister-in-law by the complainant appeared to suggest the anxiety of the informant to rope in as many of the husband’s relatives as possible. It was held that neither the FIR nor the charge-sheet furnished the legal basis for the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences alleged against the appellants. The learned Judges were pleased to hold that looking to the allegations in the FIR and the contents of the chargesheet, none of the alleged offences under Sections 498- A, 406 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were made against the married sister of the complainant’s husband who was undisputedly not living with the family of the complainant’s husband. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court were pleased to hold that the High Court ought not to have relegated the sister-in-law to the ordeal of trial. Accordingly, the proceedings against the appellants were quashed and the appeal was allowed.”
10. In a recent judgment in the matter of Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. vs. State of Telangana & Anr., this Court has again reiterated and deprecated the practice of involving the relatives of the husband in dowry related matters. The following has been held in paras 24, 25, 28, 30, 31 & 32:
Paras: 24 to 32”
Omnibus allegation against appellants staying in USA that they too demanded dowry
11. In the present case also, it is an admitted position that the appellants are residing at Hyderabad whereas the de-facto complainant stayed in her marital house at Guntur at the relevant point of time. She is presently staying in USA. There is omnibus allegation against the appellants that they too used to demand dowry or instigate accused nos. 1 to 3 who are not before us, in demanding dowry.
Conclusion
12. Considering the entire facts of the case, we are of the view, having relied on this Court’s previous decisions in Geeta Mehrotra (supra) & Dara Lakshmi Narayana (supra), the present criminal case against the appellants deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and Criminal Case No. 359 of 2016 against the appellants is quashed.
Judgments involved with citations
1. Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr (2012) 10 SCC 741
2. Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. vs. State of Telangana & Anr (2024) INSC 953; (2024) 12 SCR 559
3. G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad (2000) 3 SCC 693
4. Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667
Acts and sections involved
Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) – Power to quash proceedings
Section 66C of the Information Technology Act – Offence related to identity theft
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Cruelty by husband or relatives of husband
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Prohibition of dowry demands
Party
Muppidi Lakshmi Narayana Reddy & Ors. (Appellants) and The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. (Respondents) – Criminal Appeal No. 2137 of 2025 – 2025 INSC 562 – April 23, 2025 – Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra.
