MANU/TL/0632/2021

Equivalent/Neutral Citation: 2022 (1) ALD(C rl.) 622 , 2022 (2) ALT (C rl.) 162 (A.P.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF STATE OF TELANGANA

Criminal Petition Nos. 6847 and 6874 of 2020
Decided On: 31.08.2021
Alikanti Srujan and Ors. Vs. The State of Telangana and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Kunuru Lakshman, J.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: P. Vishnuvardhana Reddy, Advocate
For Respondents/Defendant: Public Prosecutor and V. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate
Case Category:
CRIMINAL MATTERS - MATTERS FOR/AGAINST QUASHING OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
Case Note:
Criminal - Proceedings - Quashing of - Sections 498A, 420 and 323 of Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
(DP Act) - Present petition filed seeking to quash criminal proceedings
initiated against accused-petitioners for commission of offenses punishable
under Sections 498A, 420 and 323 of IPC and Sections 4 and 5 of DP Act -
Whether case made out to quash proceedings - Held, prima facie, there are
specific allegations against accused Nos. 2 and 3, in-laws of respondent No. 2
about harassment- Proceedings against them not liable to be quashed - No
specific allegations against accused Nos. 4 to 6as per contents of charge sheet
- Proceedings against them liable to be quashed - Petition partly allowed.
[12]
ORDER
Kunuru Lakshman, J.
1. Criminal Petition No. 6847 of 2020 is filed by accused Nos. 4 and 5 under Section -
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the
proceedings in C.C. No. 6307 of 2019 on the file of V Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, L.B. Nagar, Cyberabad, whereas Criminal Petition No. 6874 of 2020 is filed
by accused Nos. 2, 3 and 6 to quash the proceedings against them in the said C.C.
2. The petitioners in Criminal Petition No. 6847 of 2020 are accused Nos. 4 and 5, while
the petitioners in Criminal Petition No. 6874 of 2020 are accused Nos. 2, 3 and 6. The
offences alleged against them are under Sections - 498A, 420 and 323 of IPC and
Sections - 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
3. Heard Mr. P. Vishnuvardhana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. V.
Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 and learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 - State in both the
Criminal Petitions.

03-01-2024 (Page 1 of 10) www.manupatra.com Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University
 4. As per the charge sheet, allegations against the petitioners are as under:
i) The marriage of respondent No. 2 - de facto complainant with accused No. 1
was performed on 05.12.2015.
ii) Accused No. 2 and 3 are in-laws of respondent No. 2, while accused No. 4 is
her brother-in-law and accused No. 5 is wife of accused No. 4. Accused No. 6 is
mediator to the said marriage, and maternal uncle of accused No. 1.
iii) At the time of marriage, on the demand of accused No. 1 and his parents,
the parents of respondent No. 2 gave cash of Rs. 2.00 lakhs and presented 15
tulas of gold, 2 tulas of gold to accused No. 1, house-hold articles and 1½ acre
of agricultural land at Sitharampuram Village, Huzurnagar Mandal, Suryapet
District.
iv) After marriage, respondent No. 2 joined the company of accused No. 1 at
her marital home in Khammam, and stayed along with accused Nos. 1 to 5 for
4-5 days, and later, they shifted to Hyderabad. After one week, accused Nos. 4
and 5 left for UK. Respondent No. 2 and accused No. 1 started living in a rented
house at Habsiguda.
v) Within a week, accused No. 1 started harassing respondent No. 2, both
physically and mentally on silly issues, such as making comments in the
presence of relatives that respondent No. 2 does not know cooking properly,
not allowing her to speak with her parents and that she should speak to
accused No. 3 alone etc., the details of which have been mentioned in the
charge sheet.
vi) Accused Nos. 2 and 3, in-laws, also harassed respondent No. 2 saying that
she did not know cooking. Further, whenever, her in-laws visits their house,
accused No. 1 used to tell lies against her, on which, her in-laws used to abuse
her.
vii) Later, respondent No. 2 came to know that accused No. 1 had already
married to one Deepika on 25.12.2013 at Arya Samaj, Delhi.
viii) Accused No. 1 went to Singapore on work Visa. Then the things became
worse and during the said period, respondent No. 2 gave birth to a female child
on 15.10.2016. After return on Work Visa, they took a rented house at
Hastinapuram and used to stay there. When she questioned about the first
marriage, accused No. 1 used to quarrel with her. After some time, accused No.
1 has become jobless and addicted to bad vices. As respondent No. 2 was
unable to bear the harassment meted out by accused No. 1, she left the house
and started residing with her parents.
ix) Accused No. 1 lodged a complaint against respondent No. 2 at Rajendra
Nagar Police Station for not leading marital life, on which, the police held
counseling between the parties. After some days, again accused Nos. 1 to 3
started harassing respondent No. 2 both physically and mentally. Accused Nos.
4 to 6 knowing fully well about the first marriage of accused No. 1, concealed
the same and cheated respondent No. 2. Thus, all the accused are liable to be
prosecuted for the aforesaid offences.
5. On receipt of the charge sheet, the learned Magistrate has taken the same on file vide

03-01-2024 (Page 2 of 10) www.manupatra.com Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University
 C.C. No. 6307 of 2019 for the aforesaid offences against the accused including the
petitioners herein.
6. Petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 herein have filed Criminal Petition No. 6847 of 2020 to quash
the proceedings against them in the aforesaid C.C. with the following grounds:
i) Accused Nos. 4 and 5 are innocent and no way concerned with the alleged
offences and that they are falsely implicated in the above case as they
happened to be brother-in-law and co-sister of respondent No. 2.
ii) Accused Nos. 4 and 5 have settled in London, UK in the year 2011 and that
hardly they visited Hyderabad on two occasions, viz., at the time of marriage of
accused No. 1 and respondent No. 2, and at the time of delivery of accused No.
5. Thus, the question of harassing respondent No. 2 by accused Nos. 4 and 5
does not arise.
iii) There are no specific allegations against accused Nos. 4 and 5, and there is
no evidence to prove the same.
iv) Accused No. 1 has already filed a petition against respondent No. 2 seeking
divorce on the ground of cruelty vide FCOP N.841 of 2019 on the file of Family
Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. As a counter blast, respondent No. 2
filed the present case with false allegations.
v) In order to harass the entire family of accused No. 1, respondent No. 2 has
implicated all the family members in the present case.
vi) In support of their submissions, accused Nos. 4 and 5 have relied on a
decision in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab MANU/SC/0296/2000 : (2000) 5 SCC
207.
7. Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 6 have filed Criminal Petition No. 6874 of 2020 to quash the
proceedings against them in the aforesaid C.C. on the same grounds that are raised by
accused Nos. 4 and 5 apart from the following grounds:
i) Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are innocent and are no way concerned with the
alleged offences and that they are falsely implicated in the above case as they
happened to be the in-laws of respondent No. 2. Whereas, accused No. 6 is a
mediator to the marriage and he is no way concerned with the alleged
harassment etc. In fact, the entire charge sheet does not disclose about the role
of accused No. 6.
ii) Respondent No. 2 was residing with her husband, accused No. 1 right from
2015 to 2019 at different places viz., Habsiguda, Meerpet, Hastinapur and
Nagloe, whereas accused Nos. 2 and 3 were residing at Khammam as accused
No. 2 was working as RTC Employee in Khammam Bus Depot and retired on
31.03.2019. Thus, the question of harassing respondent No. 2 by accused Nos.
2 and 3 does not arise.
8 . With the aforesaid submissions, the petitioners sought to quash the proceedings
against them in the aforesaid C.C.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, would contend that there
are specific allegations mentioned by respondent No. 2 in her complaint, date wise and
the harassment that was meted out by the petitioners towards her. The police after

03-01-2024 (Page 3 of 10) www.manupatra.com Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University
 going through the complaint and after satisfying that there are grounds of harassment
etc., registered a case vide FIR No. 219 of 2019 for the aforesaid offences. During the
investigation, the police have recorded the statements of relevant witnesses and on the
analysis of the same, came to a conclusion that, prima facie, there is evidence with
regard to the harassment meted out by the petitioners, filed charge sheet against them
for the aforesaid offences.
i) Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioners have to disprove
the allegations during trial and, therefore, at this stage, the proceedings cannot
be quashed.
ii) With the said submissions, learned counsel sought to dismiss both the
criminal petitions.
10. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would contend that the police having recorded
the relevant witnesses and having gone through the contents of complaint, filed the
charge sheet against the petitioners and accused No. 1. There are specific allegations
against each of the accused in the complaint lodged by respondent No. 2 with regard to
harassment etc., meted out by them towards respondent No. 2. The contention that the
petitioners are innocent and that they are no way concerned with the alleged offences
and that they are falsely implicated in the above case etc., are all to be tested during
trial, but not at this stage and, therefore, the proceedings cannot be quashed at this
stage.
i) With the aforesaid contentions, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor sought to
dismiss the criminal petitions.
11. FINDING OF THE COURT:
i) As stated above, the undisputed facts are that accused Nos. 2 and 3 are
parents of accused No. 1 and accused Nos. 4 and 5 are brother and sister-in-
law of accused No. 1. Accused No. 6 is mediator of the marriage and also
maternal uncle of accused No. 1. The marriage of respondent No. 2 with
accused No. 1 was performed on 05.12.2015, and it is an arranged marriage.
They have stayed at Khammam for 4-5 days and thereafter, they have shifted to
Hyderabad. Accused Nos. 4 and 5 are residents of UK at that particular point of
time, and they came to India at the time of marriage of accused No. 1 with
respondent No. 2. After one week of marriage, they left UK.
ii) In the charge sheet, it is specifically mentioned that respondent No. 2
questioned accused No. 1 about the first marriage and he told her that she
(Deepika) is his friend. One day Ms. Divya, one of the friends of accused No. 1,
chatted with him from Malasia and he became dull whole day. On enquiry,
accused No. 1 told that Divya's friend loved him and she is still waiting for him
to marry. Then, respondent No. 2 questioned accused No. 1 whether he loved
her, for which he denied. On the next day, respondent No. 2 left to her office
and had taken cell number of Divya from accused No. 1 and made phone call to
Divya, who told her that accused No. 1 has tragedy before the marriage, hope
that he is now OK, disconnected the call and informed the same to accused No.
1. The said fact was informed to accused No. 3 by accused No. 1. Accused No.
3 abused respondent No. 2 in filthy language when she came from the office.
After that, accused No. 1 beat respondent No. 2 by questioning that why she
was making phone calls to Divya. By that time, respondent No. 2 was sixth
month pregnant.

03-01-2024 (Page 4 of 10) www.manupatra.com Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University
 iii) It is also specifically mentioned in the charge sheet that on the next day,
respondent No. 2 informed the same to her parents, who asked accused No. 1
to send their daughter to their house. Accordingly, accused No. 1 dropped
respondent No. 2 at her parents' house. After few days, accused No. 1 went to
Singapore on work. Respondent No. 2 expected delivery within one week. At
that time, accused No. 1 telephoned her uncle and abused everybody. Her uncle
was in USA at that particular point of time. Within her delivery, she came to
know about accused No. 1 through Linked In that he is already having
dependent VISA. Respondent No. 2 was blessed with a female baby on
15.10.2016. The said fact was informed to her in-laws by the father of
respondent No. 2 i.e., LW.3, and she informed the said fact to accused No. 1.
Her in-laws came to her parents' house. After five months, accused No. 1 came
from Singapore to see the baby, but he told everybody that they did not inform
about the birth of daughter. A panchayat was held with regard to the same at
Suryapet. Thereafter, accused No. 1 took respondent No. 2 to his residence at
Khammam.
iv) It is also specifically mentioned in the charge sheet that respondent No. 2
enquired with regard to the dependent VISA of accused No. 1, who in turn
informed her that he has already married a woman for the purpose of going to
UK. The said woman did not like him and he has no relation with that woman
and, thus, accused No. 1 told lies to respondent No. 2. They have stayed at
Khammam for three months and came back to Hyderabad. She found accused
No. 1's first marriage Photographs in the mail and on coming to know about the
said fact, accused No. 3 started abusing her and accused No. 1 beat her.
v) It is further mentioned in the charge sheet that a panchayat was held in
which accused No. 3 agreed that it is the mistake of accused No. 1 and after
coming to know about that marriage he had taken divorce and showed the
same. Then the elders convinced her and sent her. Accused No. 2 got
transferred from Khammam to Hyderabad. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 resided at
Attapur. Accused No. 1 lodged a complaint against respondent No. 2 at
Rajendranagar Police Station that she is not coming to lead matrimonial life.
The elders have conducted counselling between accused No. 1 and respondent
No. 2 thrice wherein accused No. 1 has agreed certain conditions. They have
taken a rented house at Nagole and accused Nos. 2 and 3 also resided with
them. After fifteen days, accused Nos. 2 and 3 went to Khammam on some
work. Again, accused No. 1 has tortured her, both physically and mentally. It is
also mentioned that after the marriage, accused Nos. 4 and 5 came to India
twice, but they never came to respondent No. 2.
vi) In the complaint as well as the statement recorded under Section - 161 of
Cr.P.C., respondent No. 2 has categorically stated that accused Nos. 4 to 6
never tortured her, but all of them knew about the first marriage of accused No.
1 which they have concealed and cheated her. The same were also stated by
LWs.2 and 3, parents of respondent No. 2 and other witnesses in the
statements recorded under Section -161 of Cr.P.C. On the analysis of the said
statements, the Investigating Officer has specifically mentioned in the charge
sheet that accused Nos. 4 to 6 never tortured respondent No. 2, but they all
knew about the first marriage of accused No. 1 which they have concealed and
cheated her. Even then, the Investigating Officer in the charge sheet mentioned
that accused Nos. 4 to 6 have committed the offences under Sections - 498A,
420 and 323 of IPC and Sections - 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In fact,

03-01-2024 (Page 5 of 10) www.manupatra.com Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University
 there is no allegation attracting the offence under Section - 323 of IPC against
accused Nos. 4 to 6, and the allegation is only against accused No. 1.
vii) It is relevant to note that accused No. 6 is only a mediator of the marriage,
and according to respondent No. 2, he is maternal uncle of accused No. 1. It is
the specific allegation of respondent No. 2 that accused No. 1 married one
Deepika on 25.12.2013 at Arya Samaj, Delhi. According to her, the petitioners
in both the criminal petitions, accused Nos. 2 to 6 are aware of the said fact,
but they have concealed the same. Thus, absolutely there is no evidence to
show that accused Nos. 4 and 5 are aware of the first marriage of accused No.
1, and so also accused No. 6.
viii) In view of the above discussion, according to this Court, the contents of
the charge sheet lacks the ingredients of offences alleged against accused Nos.
4 to 6. However, prima facie, there are specific allegations against accused Nos.
2 and 3, in-laws of respondent No. 2 about the harassment said to have meted
out by them towards respondent No. 2.
ix) In Ranjana Gopalrao Thorat v. State of Maharashtra MANU/MH/0695/2007 :
2007 Crl.L.J. 3866 relied on by the petitioners, the Bombay High Court at
Nagpur Bench dealt with the scope of Section - 498A of IPC. In the said case,
the deceased was the first wife of Baburao Charhate, accused therein. During
subsistence of the said marriage, he married the applicant. In the said context,
the Bombay High Court held that since the marriage between the accused and
the applicant is void on account of subsistence of first marriage and that she
does not fall within the scope of Section - 498A of IPC, and, accordingly,
proceedings against her have been quashed. But, the said principle is
inapplicable to the facts of the present case.
x) In Smt. Sunita Goyal v. State of Punjab , the Punjab and Haryana High Court,
on examination of facts of the case therein, held that to attract the penal
provisions of the offences punishable under Sections - 406 and 498A of IPC,
there must be specific allegations/overt acts and prima facie material against
the accused therein to indicate that the dowry articles were actually entrusted to
them. Whereas, in the case on hand, as discussed above, there are specific
allegations against accused Nos. 2 and 3, while no allegations against accused
Nos. 4 to 6. Thus, the said decision is not helpful to Accused Nos. 2 and 3.
xi) In Sunita Jha v. State of Jharkhand MANU/SC/0707/2010 : (2010) 10 SCC
190, the complainant therein has live-in relationship with accused, and the
Apex Court on an examination of facts of the case therein held that Section -
498A of IPC being a penal provision deserves strict construction, neither a
girlfriend nor concubine is a relative of a husband within the meaning of
Section - 498A of IPC. Whereas, in the present case, respondent No. 2 got
married accused No. 1 and, therefore, the said decision is not helpful to the
case of petitioners herein.
xii) A. Subash Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh MANU/SC/0845/2011 : (2011)
7 SCC 616 deals with a case of bigamy and, therefore, the principle laid down
in the said decision is in applicable to the case on hand.
xiii) Shivcharan Lal Verma v. State of Madhya Pradesh MANU/SC/0466/2002 :
(2007) 15 SCC 369 also a case of second marriage during life time of first wife,
moreover, the trial Court therein has convicted, which was confirmed by the

03-01-2024 (Page 6 of 10) www.manupatra.com Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University
 High Court, and the Apex Court reduced the sentence and, therefore, the said
decision is also not helpful to the petitioners herein.
xiv) In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of Uttar Pradesh MANU/SC/0895/2012 : (2012)
10 SCC 741, the Apex Court held that casual reference to the family members of
husband (unmarried sister and elder brother of husband) in FIR as co-accused
as well as parents of the accused, and in the absence of any specific allegation
and prima facie case against co-accused, proceedings are liable to be quashed.
In the case on hand, there are specific allegations against accused Nos. 2 and
3, while no allegations against accused Nos. 4 to 6.
xv) In Swapnil v. State of Madhya Pradesh MANU/SC/0451/2014 : (2014) 13
SCC 567, the wife therein was living separately since April 2011 due to strained
relationship with her husband, and in the said circumstances, the Apex Court
held that there is no question of any beating by the appellants as the second
respondent therein was not interested to live together. The facts of the said
case are altogether different to the case on hand in so far as the petitioners are
concerned.
xvi) In Rajesh Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh MANU/SC/0909/2017 : (2018)
10 SCC 472, the Apex Court gave remedial measures and directions in order to
avoid implication of family members of husband without there-being any
specific allegations. But, in the case on hand, prima facie, there are specific
allegations against accused Nos. 2 and 3 and, therefore, the said decision is
inapplicable to accused Nos. 2 and 3.
xvii) In Ramesh v. State of Tamil Nadu MANU/SC/0174/2005 : (2005) 3 SCC
507, it was held that the contents of the complaint lacks the ingredients of
offences alleged against the accused therein.
xviii) In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand MANU/SC/0592/2010 : (2010) 7
SCC 667, the Apex Court held as under:
"30. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints
under section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial
issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of
such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with
oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of
genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious
concern.
3 1 . The learned members of the Bar have enormous social
responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of family life
is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated
versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal
complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or
with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to
a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat
every complaint under section 498-A as a basic human problem and
must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an
amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their
duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and
tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should
also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases.

03-01-2024 (Page 7 of 10) www.manupatra.com Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University
 3 2 . Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the
implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the
complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable
harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close
relations.
33. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the
guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task
in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband
and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even
after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real
truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing
with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into
consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of
harassment of husband's close relations 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 complaint are required to be scrutinized with great
care and circumspection. Experience reveals that long and protracted
criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the
relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common
knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the
husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would
ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of
suffering is extremely long and painful.
3 4 . Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that a
serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the legislation. It
is also a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the
incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. The tendency of
over implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases."
xix) The Apex Court in Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. The State of Maharashtra
MANU/SC/0180/2019 : AIR 2019 SC 847 has categorically held that quashing
criminal proceedings was called for only in a case where complaint did not
disclose any offence, or was frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. If allegations
set out in complaint did not constitute offence of which cognizance had been
taken by Magistrate, it was open to High Court to quash same. It was not
necessary that, a meticulous analysis of case should be done before trial to find
out whether case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appeared on a
reading of complaint and consideration of allegations therein, in light of the
statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there
would be no justification for High Court to interfere. The defences that might be
available, or facts/aspects which when established during trial, might lead to
acquittal, were not grounds for quashing complaint at threshold. At that stage,
only question relevant was whether averments in complaint spell out
ingredients of a criminal offence or not. The Court has to consider whether
complaint discloses that prima facie, offences that were alleged against
Respondents. Correctness or otherwise of said allegations had to be decided
only in trial. At initial stage of issuance of process, it was not open to Courts to
stifle proceedings by entering into merits of the contentions made on behalf of
Accused. Criminal complaints could not be quashed only on ground that,
allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If ingredients of offence

03-01-2024 (Page 8 of 10) www.manupatra.com Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University
 alleged against Accused were prima facie made out in complaint, criminal
proceeding shall not be interdicted.
xx) In Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited v. The State of Uttar
Pradesh MANU/SC/0898/2020 : AIR 2021 SC 931, the Apex Court referring to
the earlier judgments rendered by it has categorically held that the High Courts
in exercise of its inherent powers under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C. has to quash
the proceedings in criminal cases in rarest of rare cases with extreme caution.
xxi) In M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra
MANU/SC/0272/2021 : AIR 2021 SC 1918, a Three-judge Bench of the Apex
Court laid certain conclusions, for the purpose of exercising powers by High
Courts under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C. and also Article - 226 of the Constitution
of India, which are as under:
"....
iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with
circumspection, in the 'rarest of rare cases'. (The rarest of rare cases
standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not
to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context
of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court);
v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the
court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or
genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity
than an ordinary rule;
viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of
the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific
spheres of activities. The inherent power of the court is, however,
recognised to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the
process by Section 482 Cr.P.C.
ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not
overlapping;
x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in
miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not
interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;
xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an
arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or
caprice;
xii) The first information report is not an encyclopedia which must
disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore,
when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should
not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be
permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to
pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR

03-01-2024 (Page 9 of 10) www.manupatra.com Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University
 does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of
process of law. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer
finds that there is no substance in the application made by the
complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate
report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered
by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;
xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment
of wide power requires the court to be cautious. It casts an onerous
and more diligent duty on the court;
xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being
had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by
law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the
cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction
to quash the FIR/complaint; and
xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged
accused, the court when it exercises the power under Section 482
Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR
disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to
consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable
offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating
agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR."
12. CONCLUSION:
i) As discussed above, prima facie, there are specific allegations against
accused Nos. 2 and 3, in-laws of respondent No. 2 and, therefore, the
proceedings against them cannot be quashed. However, there are no specific
allegations against accused Nos. 4 to 6 even as per the contents of the charge
sheet and, therefore, the proceedings against them are liable to be quashed.
ii) Criminal Petition No. 6847 of 2020 is accordingly allowed, and the
proceedings in C.C. No. 6307 of 2019 on the file of V Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar, are hereby quashed against
the petitioners - accused Nos. 4 and 5. Further, Criminal Petition No. 6874 of
2020 is allowed in part quashing the proceedings in the said C.C. No. 6307 of
2019 against petitioner No. 3 - Accused No. 6 alone while dismissing the
petition filed by accused Nos. 2 and 3.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in both the Criminal Petitions shall
stand closed.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

03-01-2024 (Page 10 of 10) www.manupatra.com Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University