Telangana High Court
Chittibotla Bharadwaja Sharma 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.6967 OF 2024
DATE: 25.03.2026
Between :
Chittibotla Bharadwaja Sharma and three others.
... Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana
Through PS KPHB Cyberabad rep By the Public Prosecutor
HighCourt Buildings High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad and
another.
... Respondents.
O R D E R:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "the BNSS"), seeking quashment of the proceedings in P.R.C. No.12 of 2024 on the file of the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally. 2
2. Heard Smt. Y. Ratna Prabha, learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State.
3.1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that respondent No.2/defacto complainant came into contact with accused No.1 in October, 2007 through a mutual acquaintance, and their relationship subsequently developed with discussions of marriage. It is alleged that accused No.1, on the promise of marriage, obtained financial assistance from the complainant and took possession of her gold ornaments, LIC bonds, land documents, and educational certificates. It is further alleged that accused No.1 later refused to marry her. 3.2. Additionally, it is alleged that on 22.03.2022, accused No.1 called the complainant to his flat and had sexual intercourse with her without her consent, and thereafter ceased all communication. 3.3. Based on the said complaint, a crime was registered, and upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed. The present petitioners, who are family members of accused No.1 (arrayed as accused Nos.2 to 5), have approached this Court seeking quashment of the proceedings on the ground that no specific overt acts are attributed to them.
34.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the father, mother, brother, and sister of accused No.1, and have been falsely implicated without any factual basis. It is contended that the entire allegations in the complaint pertain exclusively to the personal relationship between respondent No.2 and accused No.1; there are no specific allegations or overt acts attributed to the petitioners in respect of the alleged promise of marriage, financial transactions, or any other offence; the dispute is essentially between the complainant and accused No.1, and the petitioners have been roped in solely on account of their relationship with him; it is further submitted that the complaint is a counterblast to an earlier complaint dated 30.12.2022 lodged by accused No.1 before KPHB Police Station, and has been filed with mala fide intent to harass the petitioners. The petitioners also point out that there is an unexplained delay of more than two years in lodging the complaint in respect of the alleged incidents, which casts serious doubt on the credibility of the allegations. 4.2. It is further contended that the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 420 IPC, namely dishonest inducement and delivery of property, are not made out against the petitioners; the petitioners are living separately and are well settled in their respective professions (petitioner No.3 being a software engineer and petitioner No.4 a law student residing at Nandyal); the allegations in the 4 complaint are vague, omnibus, and devoid of particulars; no details regarding the alleged gold, documents, or financial transactions have been furnished, nor is there any material establishing the complainant's financial capacity or ownership of such assets. It is therefore contended that continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to abuse of process of law.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the parents of accused No.1 had assured the complainant regarding the proposed marriage, and believing such assurances, the complainant advanced money by availing loans and pledging her gold ornaments. It is contended that the investigation, including the statement of the victim, prima facie establishes the involvement of the petitioners, and therefore, a case is made out for prosecution. It is further submitted that at this stage, the Court ought not to examine the truthfulness or reliability of the statements, and that the matter should be left to trial. Accordingly, dismissal of the petition is sought.
6. This Court has perused the material available on record and considered the rival submissions.
7. At the outset, it is a well settled principle that criminal proceedings cannot be permitted to continue against family members of an accused in the absence of specific and credible allegations 5 demonstrating their active involvement in the commission of the offence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, has held that where the allegations in the complaint do not prima facie constitute an offence or are manifestly attended with mala fide intention, the High Court may exercise its inherent powers to quash the proceedings. Similarly, in Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741, it was held that mere casual reference to family members, without any specific role attributed to them, is insufficient to proceed against them. Further, in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 162, the Apex Court cautioned against the tendency to implicate family members in criminal proceedings arising out of personal disputes, in the absence of specific allegations, and held that continuation of such proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.
8. In the instant case, a careful examination of the complaint and the charge sheet reveals that the core allegations pertain to the relationship between respondent No.2 and accused No.1; there are no specific or distinct acts attributed to the petitioners in relation to the alleged inducement, cheating, or any other offence; the allegations against the petitioners are general and omnibus in nature, based solely on their relationship with accused No.1; and there is no material 6 indicating that the petitioners shared any common intention so as to attract Section 34 IPC.
9. Further, the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 420 IPC, namely, dishonest inducement at the inception and delivery of property pursuant thereto are not made out against the petitioners. In the absence of any foundational allegations or material demonstrating their involvement, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be unjustified and would amount to abuse of process of Court.
10. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed, and the proceedings in P.R.C. No.12 of 2024 on the file of the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally, insofar as the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5 are concerned, are hereby quashed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________
Date: 25.03.2026 N.TUKARAMJI, J
MRKR