APHC010151702025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3339/2025 Between: 1. GAJULAPALLI TIRUPATAMMA, W/O LATE MALAKONDAIAH @ CHINNA MALAKONDA REDDY, AGED 70 YEARS, VAKAMALLAVARIPALLI, MOPAADU VILLAGE, PAMARRU MANDAL 2. GAJULAPALLI LAKSHMAN ALIAS LAKSHMAN REDDY, S/O LATE MALAKONDA REDDY, AGE 48 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, VAKAMALLIVARIPALLI, MOPAADU VILLAGE (R/O FLAT NO. 303 VYOM SAI RESIDENCY, CHANDRIKA NAGAR, KONDAYAPALEM NELLORE 524004 RESIDING FROM 2022) 3. PITCHALA BHAGYALAKSHMI, W/O RAMANA REDDY AGED 50 YEARS OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O H.NO. 1-4-152 GANDHI NAGAR, 1ST LANE ANKAPALLI AMMAL COLLEGE ANAKAPALLI TOWN 4. PITCHALA RAMANAIAH @ RAMANA REDDY, S/O LAKSHMAIAH, AGED 56 YEARS OCC R/O H.NO. 1-4-152 GANDHI NAGAR, 1ST LANE ANKAPALLI AMMAL COLLEGE, ANAKAPALLI TOWN ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P.AMARAVATHI 2. GAJULAPALLI SAVITRI, W/O RAMI REDDY, AGED 47 YEARS OCC PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, REDDY COLONY, MOPAADU VILLAGE, PAMURU MANDAL CELL NO. 95733-71408 2 ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. K SREEDHAR MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. KURAVATI LENIN BABU The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.,’)/Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) seeking to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 5 in C.C.No.487 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kanigiri (for brevity, ‘the learned Trial Court’). 2. Initially, notice to Respondent No.2 was issued but returned un-served. Therefore, this Court permitted the Petitioners to serve notice on the Counsel for Respondent No.2, who was appearing before ‘the learned Trial Court’. Accordingly, notice was sent to the Counsel for Respondent No.2, and a memo to that effect has been filed. There is no representation for Respondent No.2. Hence, a learned legal aid counsel is appointed to argue the case on behalf of Respondent No.2, for the ends of justice as no prejudice is caused to Respondent No.2. Hence, Mr.K.Lenin Babu, learned counsel, is appointed as learned legal aid counsel for Respondent No.2 in this case. The Secretary, 3 High Court Legal Services Committee, is directed to issue necessary proceedings in this regard. 3. Mr. K. Sreedhar Murthy, learned counsel for the Petitioners, submits that they have been falsely implicated on vague and omnibus allegations, despite living separately for decades without any involvement in the matrimonial affairs of Accused No.1 and Respondent No.2. He further submits that the present proceedings are a counterblast to F.C.O.P.No.1742 of 2023 and constitute an abuse of process of law, as the complaint and charge sheet are motivated and lack specific allegations. 4. Per contra, Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submits that Respondent No.2 was subjected to cruelty and harassment not only by Accused No.1 but also by the Petitioners. It is further submitted that specific allegations were made against them, and that their acts of demanding additional dowry and abusing the complainant amount to clear instances of cruelty and harassment under law. 5. Mr.K.Lenin Babu, learned legal aid counsel for Respondent No.2, argued on the same lines as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, supporting the allegations of harassment and opposing the quash petition. 6. Heard learned counsel for Petitioners, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned legal aid counsel for Respondent No.2. Perused the record. 7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 4 8. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.487 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kanigiri are liable to be quashed in exercise of the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of „the Cr.P.C.,‟/Section 528 of „the BNSS‟?” 9. On careful perusal of the record, it is observed that Petitioner No.1/Accused No.2 is a 70‑year‑old female, the mother of Accused No.1. Petitioner No.2/Accused No.3 is the brother of Accused No.1 and the brother‑in‑law of Respondent No.2. Petitioner No.3/Accused No.4 is the sister of Accused No.1 and the sister‑in‑law of Respondent No.2, aged about 50 years. Petitioner No.4/Accused No.5 is the husband of the sister of Accused No.1 and the husband of Respondent No.3, aged about 56 years. The Accused No.1/husband of Respondent No.2 has not filed any petition seeking quashment of the proceedings. 10. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to the Judgment of the High Court of Allahabad, in Mukesh Bansal v. State of U.P1 at paragraph Nos.48 and 49, held as under: “48. Thus assesing the totality of the circumstances, object and the allegation of misuse of this piece of legislation in a shape of Section 498A IPC, the Court is proposing the safeguards after taking the guidace from the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v. Union of India (Supra) keeping in view the growing tendency in the masses to nail the husband and all family members by a general and sweeping allegations. 49. Thus, It is directed that:— (i) No arrest or police action to nab the named accused persons shall be made after lodging of the FIR or complaints without concluding the “Cooling-Period” which is two months from the lodging of the FIR or the complaint. During this “Cooling-Period”, the matter would be immediately 12022 SCC OnLine All 395 5 referred to Family Welfare Committee (hereinafter referred to as FWC) in the each district. (ii) Only those cases which would be transmitted to FWC in which Section 498-A IPC along with, no injury 307 and other sections of the IPC in which the imprisonment is less than 10 years. (iii) After lodging of the complaint or the FIR, no action should take place without concluding the “Cooling-Period” of two months. During this “Cooling-Period”, the matter may be referred to Family Welfare Committee in each districts. (iv) Every district shall have at least one or more FWC (depending upon the geographical size and population of that district constituted under the District Legal Aid Services Authority) comprising of at least THREE MEMBERS. Its constitution and function shall be reviewed periodically by the District & Sessions Judge/Principal Judge, Family Court of that District, who shall be the Chairperson or Co-chairperson of that district at Legal Service Authority. (v) The said FWC shall comprise of the following members:— (a) a young mediator from the Mediation Centre of the district or young advocate having the practices up to five years or senior most student of Vth year, Government Law College or the State University or N.L.Us. having good academic track record and who is public spirited young man, OR; (b) well acclaimed and recognized social worker of that district having clean antecedent, OR; (c) retired judicial officers residing in or nearby district, who can devote time for the object of the proceeding OR; (d) educated wives of senior judicial or administrative officers of the district. (vi) The member of the FWC shall never be called as a witness. (vii) Every complaint or application under Section 498A IPC and other allied sections mentioned above, be immediately referred to Family Welfare Committee by the concerned Magistrate. After receiving the said complaint or FIR, the Committee shall summon the contesting parties along with their four senior elderly persons to have personal interaction and would try to settle down the issue/misgivings between them within a period of two months from its lodging. The contesting parties are obliged to appear before the Committee with their four elderly persons (maximum) to have a serious deliberation between them with the aid of members of the Committee. (viii) The Committee after having proper deliberations, would prepare a vivid report and would refer to the concerned Magistrate/police authorties to whom such complaints are being lodged after expiry of two months by inserting all factual aspects and their opinion in the matter. (ix) Continue deliberation before the Committee, the police officers shall themselves to avoid any arrest or any coercive action pursuant to the applications or complaint against the named accused persons. However, the Investigating Officer shall continue to have a peripheral investigation into the matter namely preparing a medical report, injury report, the statements of witnesses. (x) The said report given by the Committee shall be under the consideration of I.O. or the Magistrate on its own merit and thereafter suitable action should be taken by them as per the provision of Code of Criminal Procedure after expiry of the “Cooling-Period” of two months. (xi) Legal Services Aid Committee shall impart such basic training as may be considered necessary to the members of Family Welfare Committee from time to time(not more than one week). 6 (xii) Since, this is noble work to cure abrasions in the society where tempos of the contesting parties are very high that they would melow down the heat between them and try to resolve the misgivings and misunderstanding between them. Since, this is a job for public at large, social work, they are acting on a pro bono basis or basic minimum honorarium as fixed by the District & Sessions Judge of every district. (xiii) The investigation of such FIRs or complaint containing Section 498A IPC and other allied sections as mentioned above, shall be investigated by dynamic Investigating Officers whose integrity is certified after specialized training not less than one week to handle and investigate such matrimonal cases with utmost sincerity and transparency. (xiv) When settlement is reached between the parties, it would be open for the District & Sessions Judge and other senior judicial officers nominated by him in the district to dispose of the proceedings including closing of the criminal case.” 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Shivangi Bansal v. Sahib Bansal 2, at paragraph No.26 held as under: “26. The transfer petitions and special leave petitions are disposed of in terms of the above order. The guidelines framed by the High Court of Allahabad in the impugned judgment dated 13.06.2022 in Criminal Revision No. 1126 of 2022 vide paras 32 to 38, with regard to „Constitution of Family Welfare Committees for safeguards regarding misuse of Section 498A, IPC shall remain in effect and be implemented by the appropriate authorities.” 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana3, at paragraph No.6 held as under: “6. Criminal proceedings are not normally interdicted by us at the interlocutory stage unless there is an abuse of the process of a court. This Court, at the same time, does not hesitate to interfere to secure the ends of justice. See State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] . 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. See Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 207 and Kailash Chandra Agrawal v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 551” 13. Thus, in K. Subba Rao supra it held that criminal proceedings are ordinarily not interfered with at the interlocutory stage unless there is abuse of process; however, the Court may intervene to secure the ends of justice. In 22025 SCC OnLine SC 1494 3(2018) 14 SCC 452 7 matrimonial and dowry-related cases, distant relatives should not be implicated on omnibus allegations without specific instances of their involvement. 14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay D. Jain v. State of Maharashtra4, at paragraph Nos.9 & 10 held as under: “9. Before examining the FIR along with the complaint of the complainant, we may refer to the parameters that are to be borne in mind while entertaining the prayer for quashing of the FIR. If the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even when taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out any case against the accused, quashing of the proceedings would be justified. Vague and general allegations cannot lead to forming of a prima facie case. As regards the ingredients for making out an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Penal Code is concerned, the requirement is that there has to be cruelty inflicted against the victim which either drives her to commit suicide or cause grave injury to herself or lead to such conduct that would cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health. The latter part of the provision refers to harassment with a view to satisfy an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security raised by the husband or his relatives. These aspects have been considered in detail in a recent decision in Digambar (supra) (to which one of us, B.R. Gavai, J, as he then was, was a party). 10. A perusal of the FIR and its consideration in entirety indicates that statements of a general nature have been made therein as against the present appellants. The complainant states that on 07.08.2021 when she had gone to her parental house, she had received a call from her mother- in-law raising a demand for clothes and jewellery. When she returned to her matrimonial house on 30.08.2021, she had taken few clothes for the family members. Except this statement, all other statements are of a general nature as well as vague without any particulars. There are other omnibus statements made in the complaint without any particulars whatsoever. It is also to be noted that for the purpose of constituting an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Penal Code, cruelty as indicated in the Explanation to the said provision must be stated to be inflicted. The cruelty caused by the husband and his family members should be of such nature that it is inflicted with the intention to cause grave injury or drive the victim to commit suicide or inflict grave injury to herself. Such allegations are absent in the present case. We do not find that on a complete reading of the complaint, a prima facie case for proceeding under Section 498-A of the Penal Code has been made out against the appellants.” 15. Hence, in Sanjay D. Jain supra it is held that quashing of an FIR is justified where the allegations, even if taken at face value, are vague and do 42025 SCC OnLine SC 2090 8 not prima facie constitute the ingredients of an offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 18605. In the absence of specific allegations of cruelty of the nature contemplated under the provision, continuation of proceedings would be unwarranted. 16. The Hon’ble Apex Court in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad6, at paragraph No.12 held as under: “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 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.” 17. So, in G.V. Rao supra it is held that the growing trend of matrimonial disputes often escalates minor domestic issues into serious criminal litigation, unnecessarily implicating family elders and aggravating hostility. Courts should therefore discourage such litigation and promote amicable settlement, as prolonged legal battles waste the valuable years of the parties involved. 18. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda v. State of Gujarat7, at paragraph No.15 held as under: “15. From the above understanding of the provision, it is evident that, “cruelty” simpliciter is not enough to constitute the offence, rather it must be done either with the intention to cause grave injury or to drive her to commit suicide or with intention to coercing her or her relatives to meet unlawful demands.” 5 ‘the I.P.C.,’ 6(2000) 3 SCC 693 7(2025) 2 SCC 116 9 19. Therefore, in Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda supra it is held that mere cruelty is insufficient to attract the offence under Section 498-A of ‘the I.P.C.’ The cruelty must be intentional, either to cause grave injury or suicide, or to coerce the woman or her relatives into meeting unlawful demands. 20. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Digambar v. State of Maharashtra8, at paragraph Nos.29 & 30 held as under: “29. It can thus be seen that this Court has held that when the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute a case against the accused, the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings. Further, it has been held that where the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose any offence and make out a case against the accused, the Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings. 30. In the present case also, as discussed above, the facts when taken at face value, do not reveal any specific instance of cruelty committed by the appellants herein. In our view, only stating that cruelty has been committed by the appellants herein due to some reason, would not amount to the offence under Section 498-A of IPC being attracted. The next allegation regarding a specific incident relating to the miscarriage being caused by the appellants herein has also been discussed above. A bare perusal of the allegation and the analysis of the same when compared with the statement of the Doctor reveals that even if the allegations are accepted at the face value, it would not prima facie make out a case against the present appellants.” 21. Accordingly, in Digambar supra it is held that if the allegations in the FIR or complaint, even when taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute any offence, the High Court is justified in quashing the proceedings. In the present case, the allegations do not disclose any specific instance of cruelty to attract Section 498-A of ‘the IPC’, and even the allegation regarding miscarriage, when examined with the doctor’s statement, does not make out a prima facie case against the appellants. 82024 SCC OnLine SC 3836 10 22. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana9, at paragraph No.27 held as under: “27. 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, Appellants 2 to 6, who are the members of the family of Appellant 1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of Appellant 1 and Respondent 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.” 23. Thus, in Dara Lakshmi Narayana supra it is held that a mere reference to family members in matrimonial disputes, without specific allegations of active involvement, cannot justify criminal prosecution, as courts must guard against sweeping and generalized accusations. Where relatives live separately and no specific role is attributed to them, implicating them would amount to abuse of the process of law. 24. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar 10, at paragraph No.4 held as under: “4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A IPC is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bedridden grandfathers and grandmothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested. “Crime in 9(2025) 3 SCC 735 10(2014) 8 SCC 273 11 India 2012 Statistics” published by the National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs shows arrest of 1,97,762 persons all over India during the year 2012 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC, 9.4% more than the year 2011. Nearly a quarter of those arrested under this provision in 2012 were women i.e. 47,951 which depicts that mothers and sisters of the husbands were liberally included in their arrest net. Its share is 6% out of the total persons arrested under the crimes committed under the Penal Code. It accounts for 4.5% of total crimes committed under different sections of the Penal Code, more than any other crimes excepting theft and hurt. The rate of charge-sheeting in cases under Section 498-A IPC is as high as 93.6%, while the conviction rate is only 15%, which is lowest across all heads. As many as 3,72,706 cases are pending trial of which on current estimate, nearly 3,17,000 are likely to result in acquittal.” 25. Ergo, in Arnesh Kumar supra it is held that though Section 498-A of ‘the I.P.C.,’ was enacted to curb cruelty against married women, it has often been misused to harass husbands and their relatives through indiscriminate arrests. The low conviction rate and high pendency of cases reflect the need for caution and safeguards against mechanical arrests under the provision. 26. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar11, at paragraph Nos.11, 17 & 21 held as under: “11. Before we delve into greater detail on the nature and content of allegations made, it becomes pertinent to mention that incorporation of Section 498-AIPC 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 Section 498-AIPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives. 17. The abovementioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this Court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498- AIPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband 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. 21. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the appellant-accused, it would be 11(2022) 6 SCC 599 12 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.” 27. Accordingly, in Kahkashan Kausar supra it is held that though Section 498-A of ‘the I.P.C.,’ was enacted to curb cruelty, it is often misused to implicate the husband’s relatives through general and omnibus allegations without specific roles being attributed. In the absence of a prima facie case, compelling such relatives to undergo criminal trial amounts to abuse of process and must be discouraged. 28. As seen from the record, the marriage between Accused No.1 and Respondent No.2 was performed in the year 1998. As per the averments in the FIR/complaint lodged by Respondent No.2, she left the company of Accused No.1 in the year 2001. It is the version of Respondent No.2 that in the year 2023 she lodged a complaint against the Petitioners and Accused No.1 with the police. Upon conducting a preliminary enquiry, the police concluded that the complaint of Respondent No.2 was false. 29. Having no other option, Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 11.11.2024 against the Petitioners and Accused No.1 under Section 190 read with 200 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ / Section 210 read with 223 of ‘the BNSS’ before ‘the learned Trial Court’. The learned Jurisdictional Magistrate, by invoking powers under Section 156(3) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ directed the Station House Officer, Pamuru Police Station, Prakasam District to register a case. Accordingly, Cr.No.41 of 2024 was registered for offences punishable under Sections 13 498‑A, 506, and 509 read with 34 of ‘the I.P.C’. After investigation, the police filed a charge sheet adding Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for brevity, ‘the D.P Act’). 30. As seen from the averments of the private complaint, the statement of LW.1/Respondent No.2 recorded under Section 161(3) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and other witness statements, it is clear that there is no specific mention of the date, time, or place of giving the alleged dowry of two sovereigns of gold chain and one sovereign of gold ring to Accused No.1. Respondent No.2 states that 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.50,000/- cash were given to her, but not to any relatives of Accused No.1. She was blessed with a daughter, Navya, aged 24 years. After more than 25 years of marital life, Respondent No.2 has chosen to initiate criminal proceedings. 31. The Respondent No.2 has not alleged that the Petitioners themselves committed acts of cruelty or harassment as defined under Section 498‑A of ‘the I.P.C.,’. The allegations of the Respondent No.2 are that her mother‑in‑law, brother‑in‑law, sister‑in‑law, and her husband spoke certain words to Accused No.1, which led him to abuse her in filthy language, beat her, and necked her out demanding additional gold and cash. However, she has not specified that Accused No.1 directly demanded dowry, nor has she mentioned the date, time, or place of such alleged demand. The quantum of additional dowry allegedly demanded is also not stated. 32. Thus, the allegations are sweeping and vague in nature. The complaint and witness statements do not clearly attract the offences under Sections 14 498‑A, 506, and 509 read with 34 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and they also fail to establish the ingredients of Sections 3 and 4 of ‘the D.P Act’. In the absence of any clear demand for dowry, and since the gold and cash were voluntarily given by her parents at the time of marriage, the question of additional dowry does not arise. 33. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the sweeping, bald, and omnibus nature of the allegations, continuation of the proceedings against the in‑laws and relatives of the husband of Respondent No.2 amounts to an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, such proceedings are liable to be quashed. 34. The Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.487 of 2024 on the file of ‘the learned Trial Court’ are hereby quashed against Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 5. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 06.04.2026 PRA 15 207 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.3339 of 2025 Date:06.04.2026 PRA