Telangana High Court
Putli Begum vs The State Of Telangana on 25 March, 2026
Author: N.Tukaramji
Bench: N.Tukaramji
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 11989 OF 2024
DATE: 25.03.2026
Between :
Putli Begum and another.
... Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 and 4.
AND
The State of Telangana, Hyderabad, represented by its
Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad, and another.
... Respondents.
ORDER
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ("BNSS, 2023"), seeking quashment of the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No. 8943 of 2020, pending on the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
2. The petitioners are arrayed as Accused Nos. 2 and 4 in the said Calendar Case, which arises out of Crime No. 83 of 2019, registered for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC").
2
NTR,J Crl.P. No. 11989 of 2024
3. During the pendency of this petition, petitioner No.1/Accused No.2 having passed away, the proceedings against her stand abated. 4.1. The prosecution case, in brief, is that respondent No.2, the de facto complainant, lodged a complaint dated 06.03.2019 stating that his younger daughter was married to Accused No.1 on 04.02.2018. It is alleged that, after the marriage, Accused No.1 used to pick quarrels with the deceased on trivial issues and, despite repeated interventions by the complainant, the disputes continued. It is further alleged that Accused No.1 subjected the deceased to harassment on the ground that she had not conceived, despite medical consultation, and threatened her with divorce.
4.2. It is further stated that on 05.03.2019, the complainant received information that his daughter had been killed at her matrimonial home. Upon reaching the spot, he found her in the washroom with a deep cut injury on her throat.
4.3. Based on the said complaint, Crime No. 83 of 2019 was registered. During the course of investigation, on the basis of the alleged confessional statement of Accused No.1 and the statements of circumstantial witnesses (L.Ws. 6 to 9), the involvement of Accused Nos. 2 to 4 came to light. The present petitioner/Accused No.4, who is related to Accused No.2, was implicated on the basis of such statements. 3
NTR,J Crl.P. No. 11989 of 2024
5. I have heard Mr. Khaled Bin Sayed, learned counsel representing Mr. Mohd. Muzaffer Ullah Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State; and Mr. Abdul Quddus Mohd., learned counsel for respondent No.2/de facto complainant.
6.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/Accused No.4 has no role whatsoever in the alleged matrimonial disputes of the deceased. It is contended that neither the complaint nor the statements of the immediate family members of the deceased attribute any specific overt act to the petitioner. The only allegation emerging from the statements of L.Ws. 6 to 9 is that the petitioner, along with others, allegedly taunted the deceased for not having children.
6.2. It is further contended that such vague and omnibus allegations, devoid of specific particulars or instances, do not constitute "cruelty" within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC. It is a well settled principle that criminal proceedings, particularly in matrimonial disputes, cannot be sustained on the basis of general and sweeping allegations against distant relatives. Accordingly, it is prayed that the proceedings against the petitioner be quashed.
4
NTR,J Crl.P. No. 11989 of 2024
7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the involvement of the petitioner came to light during investigation based on the statements of L.Ws. 6 to 9. However, he fairly concedes that, apart from the allegation that the petitioner joined others in making remarks regarding the deceased not having children, no specific overt acts or instances have been attributed to the petitioner.
8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the statements of L.Ws. 6 to 9 constitute material against the petitioner and that the veracity and evidentiary value of such statements are matters to be tested during trial. It is, therefore, contended that the petition is liable to be dismissed.
9. I have perused the material available on record.
10. The allegation against the petitioner/Accused No.4 is for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. It is not in dispute that the implication of the petitioner is based solely on the statements of L.Ws. 6 to 9, who have, in general terms, stated that the petitioner, along with other accused, used to taunt the deceased by making remarks about her inability to conceive.
11. At this juncture, it is apposite to examine the scope of "cruelty" under Section 498-A IPC. The provision contemplates (i) willful conduct 5 NTR,J Crl.P. No. 11989 of 2024 of such a nature as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb, or health; or (ii) harassment with a view to coercing her or her relatives to meet any unlawful demand.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, has held that criminal proceedings can be quashed where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not constitute any offence. Further, in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar (2022) 6 SCC 599, Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. (2012) 10 SCC 741, the Apex Court cautioned against the tendency to implicate relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations and consistently held that continuation of criminal proceedings against relatives, who are not directly involved in matrimonial discord, on vague and omnibus allegations, amounts to abuse of process of law, and such proceedings are liable to be quashed in the absence of specific material.
13. In the present case, a plain reading of the statements of L.Ws. 6 to 9 indicates that the allegations against the petitioner are general in nature and lack specificity. No particular incident, date, or overt act attributable to the petitioner has been brought on record. The allegation of taunting, without anything more, does not prima facie satisfy the ingredients of "cruelty" as defined under Section 498-A IPC.
6
NTR,J Crl.P. No. 11989 of 2024
14. In the absence of any legally sustainable material demonstrating willful conduct or harassment of the nature contemplated under Section 498-A IPC, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law. This Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C.), is duty bound to prevent such abuse and secure the ends of justice.
15. Accordingly, applying the principles laid down in Bhajan Lal and Kahkashan Kausar (supra), this Court is of the considered view that the proceedings against the petitioner/Accused No.4 are liable to be quashed.
16. Resultantly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner/Accused No.4 in C.C. No. 8943 of 2020 pending on the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 25.03.2026 svl