VISWANATHAN KRISHNA MURTHY V. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR CRIMINAL PETITION NOS. 6783, 7064 AND 6830 OF 2022:

DATE: 19.06.2025

COURT: High Court of Andhra Pradesh

BENCH: Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa

FACTS:

The complainant (Respondent No.2), a transgender woman, entered into a romantic relationship with Accused No.1 while residing in Chennai. Despite knowing her gender identity, Accused No.1 continued the relationship and assured her that he had secured his parents' approval. They began cohabiting and subsequently executed a Memorandum of Understanding before marrying on 21.01.2019 at Arya Samaj, Hyderabad, as per Hindu rites. At the time of the marriage, Respondent No.2's parents allegedly gave Rs. 10,00,000 as dowry, along with 25 sovereigns of gold, 500 grams of silver, and household items worth Rs. 2,00,000. After marriage, the couple lived with Respondent No.2’s parents in Ongole and occasionally visited Accused No.1's parents in Chennai. Relations between the complainant and Accused Nos.2 and 3 (parents of Accused No.1) were initially cordial.

However, on 11.03.2019, Accused No.1 left to visit his parents and failed to return. Attempts by the complainant to contact him were unsuccessful. On visiting his home on 13.03.2019, she found him there and alleged that Accused Nos.2 and 3 were attempting to send him abroad. She later received threatening and vulgar messages, allegedly sent from Accused No.1's phone, warning her to stay away. She claimed that all three acted under the instructions of Accused No.4. Based on these allegations, a complaint was lodged, and an FIR was registered under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Following investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and the matter is currently pending as C.C. No.585 of 2022 before the II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole. The accused have now filed criminal petitions under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashment of the proceedings.

ISSUES:

The primary issues before the Court were: (1) Whether a transwoman in a heterosexual marriage is entitled to seek protection under Section 498-A of the IPC and file a complaint against her husband and in-laws for cruelty and dowry-related offences; and (2) Whether the criminal proceedings initiated against the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 4 under Section 498-A IPC read with Section 34 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, based on the complaint lodged by the Respondent No.2, disclosed any prima facie case warranting continuation of trial.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed the criminal petitions and quashed the proceedings in C.C. No.585 of 2022 pending before the II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole. The Court held that the complaint lodged by the transwoman complainant is maintainable under Section 498-A IPC. However, it found that the allegations against Accused Nos.2, 3, and 4 were vague, general, and lacked sufficient material to constitute any prima facie case under the alleged offences. Consequently, the proceedings against all four accused were quashed.

The Court first affirmed the legal standing of a transwoman in a heterosexual marriage to lodge a complaint under Section 498-A IPC, recognizing her entitlement to protection under the law. The Court observed that Respondent No.2, being a transwoman in a heterosexual relationship, cannot be deprived of her right to seek legal recourse under Section 498-A IPC against her husband or his relatives for cruelty or dowry demands. This clarification establishes that the gender identity of a complainant does not limit her statutory rights in a legally recognized marital relationship.

Turning to the merits of the complaint, the Court found that the allegations against Accused Nos.2 and 3, who are the parents of Accused No.1, were unsupported by any material evidence. It noted that the complaint itself described cordial relations between the complainant and the accused parents-in-law, and there were no specific acts attributed to them that would amount to cruelty or dowry harassment. Similarly, regarding Accused No.4, the Court noted that the only claim against him was an unsubstantiated and vague allegation that he was influencing the other accused. The FIR and charge sheet lacked any material indicating his direct involvement in the commission of the alleged offences. As the allegations were bald and omnibus in nature, the Court held that allowing the trial to continue would be an abuse of process, and therefore exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings.

ANALYSIS:

In this case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court made a significant observation by affirming that a transwoman in a heterosexual marriage is entitled to seek protection under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. This recognition reinforces the inclusive interpretation of matrimonial rights and legal remedies under Indian law, ensuring that individuals cannot be denied statutory protections based on their gender identity. The Court acknowledged the validity of the complainant’s marriage and her legal capacity to initiate proceedings for cruelty and dowry-related offences, marking a progressive step in affirming the rights of transgender individuals within familial and legal contexts.

However, while upholding the complainant’s right to file the complaint, the Court simultaneously scrutinized the substantive allegations made in the FIR and charge sheet. It found that there were no specific or credible accusations against Accused Nos.2, 3, and 4, with the complaint itself noting cordial relations with the parents-in-law and offering no concrete evidence linking the fourth accused to any criminal act. As the allegations were general, vague, and lacking in material particulars, the Court concluded that continuing the criminal proceedings would constitute an abuse of legal process. By quashing the charges under its inherent powers, the Court underscored the necessity of separating genuine grievances from unsubstantiated claims to prevent misuse of criminal law provisions.