Telangana High Court
Allaboina Damodar vs The State Of Telangana on 13 August, 2025
Author: N.Tukaramji
Bench: N.Tukaramji
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
Criminal Petition No.10022 of 2024
ORDER
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'the BNSS') for quashment
of proceedings in C.C.No.91 of 2024 on the file of the X Additional
Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal at Athivelli, Medchal Malkajgiri
District.
2. I have heard Mr. K. Venumadhav, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, representing the respondent No.1-State.
3. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3 in
C.C.No.91 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 498-A of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, 'the DP Act').
Case Facts :
4. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that the respondent No. 2/de
facto complainant lodged a police report alleging commission of
offences punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC and Sections 3
and 4 of the DP Act. The petitioners have been arrayed as accused
Nos. 2 and 3 in the report. It is alleged that the de facto complainant
2 NTR,J
Crlp_10022_2024
married accused No. 1 on 22.05.2021. Subsequent to the marriage,
her husband and parents-in-law allegedly subjected her to harassment
with a demand for additional dowry of Rs.1 crore.
It is further alleged that, during her pregnancy, she was
physically assaulted and pushed down a flight of stairs, resulting in a
miscarriage. Additionally, accused No. 1 is alleged to have maintained
an extra-marital relationship, which the petitioners are accused of
supporting. In view of this continued harassment, the de facto
complainant left her matrimonial home on 11.03.2022. On these
grounds, it is alleged that the petitioners committed the aforesaid
offences.
5. Petitioners' Submissions:
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they have been
falsely implicated solely due to a matrimonial dispute between accused
No. 1 and the de facto complainant. It is contended that the allegations
against the petitioners are false, vague, and bereft of specific instances
of harassment or dowry demand attributable to them. In the absence of
particularised allegations or overt acts demonstrating their active
involvement in cruelty, continuation of the criminal proceedings would,
it is argued, amount to an abuse of the process of law.
It is further submitted that the complaint dated 30.10.2023 was
filed nearly 18 months after the de facto complainant had left the
3 NTR,J
Crlp_10022_2024
matrimonial home, and only after accused No. 1 initiated proceedings
before the Family Court. No plausible explanation has been provided
for this delay, which, according to the petitioners, undermines the
credibility of the allegations. Accordingly, the petitioners seek quashing
of the proceedings.
In support of their plea, the petitioners rely on the authorities, (a)
Kahkashan Kausar v. State, MANU/SC/0163/2022,(b) Abhishek v.
State of M.P., 2023 LawSuit (SC) 863, and (c) Dara Lakshmi Narayana
& Others v. State of Telangana, 2025 (3) SCC 735 and pleaded that in
these decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that criminal
proceedings initiated against relatives of the husband without specific
allegations or evidence of active involvement, merely to settle scores or
wreak vengeance amount to an abuse of the court's process. The
Court emphasised that sweeping allegations unsupported by concrete
evidence or specific details cannot form the basis for a criminal
prosecution and should be quashed at the threshold.
6. Respondent's Submissions:
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the
statements of the de facto complainant and other witnesses do name
the petitioners. However, it is conceded that, apart from general
assertions of physical and mental harassment, no specific incidents or
details are mentioned. However, it is contended that the veracity of
4 NTR,J
Crlp_10022_2024
such statements can only be assessed during the course of trial.
Accordingly, the State prays for dismissal of the petition.
7. I have perused the materials on record.
8. Analysis:
With regard to cruelty under Section 498-A of the IPC, the
provision contemplates two categories of acts, (i) any willful conduct
likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or
danger to her life, limb, or health, whether mental or physical; and (ii)
harassment of the woman with a view to coercing her or her relatives to
meet an unlawful demand for property or valuable security, or on
account of failure to meet such demand. Thus, the provision seeks to
effectively safeguard a woman from both physical/mental cruelty and
harassment in connection with dowry demands. Section 3 of the DP
Act criminalizes both the giving and taking of dowry, whereas Section 4
of the DP Act criminalizes the act of merely demanding dowry,
irrespective of whether any dowry is actually exchanged.
9. The petitioners are the parents of accused No. 1 and the
parents-in-law of respondent No. 2/de facto complainant. The fact of
marriage and the parties' relationship is not in dispute. In the police
report dated 30.10.2023, the de facto complainant alleged that, on the
second day of the marriage, the petitioners herein along with Kranthi
5 NTR,J
Crlp_10022_2024
Yadav and Chaithanya, tortured her for Rs.1 crore dowry and
instigated her husband to quarrel with and physically assault her.
10. In her statement before the investigating agency, respondent
No. 2/de facto complainant further stated that, for the past two-and-a-
half years, her husband and his family members had continuously
abused and assaulted her to extract additional dowry. She also alleged
that, sometime after the marriage, the petitioners, together with the
other accused, harassed her both physically and mentally, saying that
if her husband had married someone else, they would have received at
least Rs.2 crores in dowry. Further when she informed the petitioners
about her husband's alleged extra-marital affairs, they reportedly told
her she had no right to speak on the matter. She further alleged that
petitioner No. 1, on the second day of the marriage, quarreled with her
parents, attempted to assault her father, and, within the household,
frequently abused her. It was also alleged that petitioner No. 1 once
entered her bedroom while she was changing clothes.
According to the de facto complainant, the harassment began as
early as the date of the engagement, when the petitioners expressed
dissatisfaction with the dowry amount. She alleged that petitioner
No. 2, described as "money-minded," persistently demanded additional
dowry, abused her in filthy language, and spoke ill of her to neighbours.
The complainant further claimed that petitioner No. 2 could not bear the
6 NTR,J
Crlp_10022_2024
news of her pregnancy and, by quarrelling with her husband, provoked
him to abandon her.
11. The statements of other witnesses, namely the complainant's
parents, reiterated these allegations in their entirety. Based on these
assertions, the prosecution filed a charge sheet for offences punishable
under Section 498-A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act.
The trial court took cognizance of the case under the same provisions.
12. A holistic reading of the statements indicates that the petitioners
are alleged to have subjected the de facto complainant to both mental
and physical cruelty in connection with demands for additional dowry.
13. In this context, it is pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court while considering the aspect of mental cruelty in Samar Ghosh v.
Jaya Ghosh - (2007) 4 SCC 511 in para 101 has observed as under:
"101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem
it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may
be relevant in dealing with the cases of 'mental cruelty'. The instances
indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not
exhaustive.
(i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental
pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live
with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty.
(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it
becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party
cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live
with other party.
7 NTR,J
Crlp_10022_2024
(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent
rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect FCA-
150-2008 may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other
spouse absolutely intolerable.
(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish,
disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for
a long time may lead to mental cruelty.
(v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to
torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse.
(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually
affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment
complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave,
substantial and weighty.
(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total
departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to
mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty.
(viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness,
possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and
emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of
mental cruelty.
(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life
which happens in day to day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce
on the ground of mental cruelty.
(x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated
instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill-conduct
must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has
deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse,
the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any
longer, may amount to mental cruelty.
(xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilization without
medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and
similarly if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason
or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the
spouse may lead to mental cruelty.
8 NTR,J
Crlp_10022_2024
(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period
without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to
mental cruelty.
(xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have
child from the marriage may amount to cruelty.
(xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may
fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage
becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that
tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the
contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In
such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty.
14. In Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana, (2025) 3 SCC 756, while
considering the nature of allegations in matrimonial disputes, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that courts must evaluate all
quarrels and incidents within the specific context of each case to
determine what constitutes 'cruelty.' Such determination must be made
with due regard to the physical and mental condition of the parties,
their individual character, and their social status.
15. The Court cautioned that adopting an unduly technical or
hypersensitive approach in assessing marital discord could prove
detrimental to the very institution of marriage. It observed that not every
act or conduct in married life which causes annoyance to the other
spouse can be categorized as cruelty. Ordinary and trivial irritations,
disagreements, and quarrels, common to the day-to-day life of most
9 NTR,J
Crlp_10022_2024
married couples do not, by themselves, amount to cruelty. The proper
test, as clarified, is not merely whether the conduct would be regarded
as cruel by a reasonable person or one of average sensibilities in
general, but whether, in the specific circumstances of the case, such
conduct had the effect of causing cruelty to the aggrieved spouse.
16. Further, in Geddam Jhansi v. State of Telangana, 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 263, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paragraphs 32 and 34
of the judgment, held as follows:
"32. We have to keep in mind that in the context of matrimonial disputes,
emotions run high, and as such in the complaints filed alleging harassment or
domestic violence, there may be a tendency to implicate 17 other members
of the family who do not come to the rescue of the complainant or remain
mute spectators to any alleged incident of harassment, which in our view
cannot by itself constitute a criminal act without there being specific acts
attributed to them. Further, when tempers run high and relationships turn
bitter, there is also a propensity to exaggerate the allegations, which does not
necessarily mean that such domestic disputes should be given the colour of
criminality.
34. For a matrimonial relationship which is founded on the basis of cordiality
and trust to turn sour to an extent to make a partner to hurl allegations of
domestic violence and harassment against the other partner, would normally
not happen at the spur of the moment and such acrimonious relationship
would develop only in course of time. Accordingly, such a situation would be
the culmination of a series of acts which turns, otherwise an amicable
relationship, into a fractured one. Thus, in such cases involving allegations of
10 NTR,J
Crlp_10022_2024
domestic violence or harassment, there would normally be a series of
offending acts, which would be required to be spelt out by the complainant
against the perpetrators in specific terms to rope such perpetrators in the
criminal proceedings sought to be initiated against them. Thus, mere general
allegation of harassment without pointing out the specifics against such
perpetrators would not suffice, as is the case in respect of the present
appellants.
35. We are, thus, of the view that in criminal cases relating to domestic
violence, the complaints and charges should be specific, as far as possible,
as against each and every member of the family who are accused of such
offences and sought to be prosecuted, as otherwise, it may amount to misuse
of the stringent criminal process by indiscriminately dragging all the members
of the family. There may be situations where some of the family members or
relatives may turn a blind eye to the violence or harassment perpetrated to
the victim, and may not extend any helping hand to the victim, which does not
necessarily mean that they are also perpetrators of domestic violence, unless
the circumstances clearly indicate their involvement and instigation. Hence,
implicating all such relatives without making specific allegations and
attributing offending acts to them and 19 proceeding against them without
prima facie evidence that they were complicit and had actively collaborated
with the perpetrators of domestic violence, would amount to abuse of the
process of law.
36. Our observations, however, should not be generalised to mean that
relatives cannot be brought under the purview of the aforesaid penal
provisions when they have actively participated in inflicting cruelty on the
daughter-in-law/victim. What needs to be assessed is whether such
allegations are genuine with specific criminal role assigned to such members
11 NTR,J
Crlp_10022_2024
of the family or whether it is merely a spill over and side-effect of a
matrimonial discord and allegations made by an emotionally disturbed
person."
17. In the instant case, though the petitioners are named, the
allegations are largely general in nature, without specific instances
attributing individual overt acts to them, except broad references to
harassment 'since the second day of marriage' and during a prolonged
period thereafter. The law laid down in Kahkashan Kausar (supra) and
Dara Lakshmi Narayana (supra) cautions against allowing prosecutions
to proceed on the basis of omnibus allegations against all family
members without concrete particulars. In Achin Gupta (supra), the
Supreme Court observed that not every matrimonial discord constitutes
"cruelty," and that courts must consider the background, physical and
mental condition, and social status of the parties, avoiding an unduly
hypersensitive approach. Similarly, in Geddam Jhansi (supra), the
Court underscored that allegations must disclose ingredients of the
offence in clear terms before subjecting the accused to criminal trial.
18. Additionally, the present complaint was lodged after an
unexplained delay of approximately 18 months, following the
complainant's departure from the matrimonial home and after initiation
of Family Court proceedings by accused No. 1. Such delay, in the
12 NTR,J
Crlp_10022_2024
absence of cogent explanation, may cast doubt on the veracity of the
allegations, particularly when they are vague and lacking in particulars.
19. In view of the above, and applying the legal principles laid down
in the cited precedents, I am of the considered opinion that
continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners, in the
absence of specific and substantiated allegations of cruelty or dowry
demand directly attributable to them, would amount to an abuse of the
process of law.
20. For the foregoing reasons, the criminal petition deserves to be,
and is hereby, allowed. The proceedings in C.C. No. 91 of 2024 on the
file of the X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal at Athivelli,
Medchal Malkajgiri District, insofar as they relate to the
petitioners/accused Nos. 2 and 3, are hereby quashed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________
N.TUKARAMJI, J
Date:13.08.2025
ccm
