Telangana High Court
T.Rambabu vs The State Of Telangana on 18 August, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.15742 OF 2024
ORDER :
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the
petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 to quash the proceedings
against them in C.C.No.139 of 2024 pending on the file of II-
Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothagudem,
Bhadradri Kothagudem District registered for the offences
punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code (for short
'IPC') and under Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for
short 'D.P.Act').
2. The facts of the case are that the defacto complainant-
respondent No.3 lodged a complaint stating that her marriage
with petitioner No.1-A.1 was performed on 15.11.2013 which is
an arranged marriage. After the marriage they lived happily for
some time and they were blessed with one son, thereafter
disputes arose between the parties and started living separately
from September 2023. It is also alleged that petitioner No.1 had
taken the salary of the complainant and he also demanded
additional dowry from her parents. Petitioner No.1 also
harassed the complainant physically and her sister-in-law also
harassed her everyday. Further, the in-laws and sister-in-law of
complainant instigated A.1 to harass the complainant for
additional dowry. As such, requested the police to take
necessary action. Basing on the said complaint, the police
registered the case against the accused for the said offences.
3. Heard Sri A.Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State and Sri
P.Chaitanya, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.
4. The contention of learned counsel for petitioners is that
after the marriage A.1 and respondent No.3 resided at
Hyderabad, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 resided at Suryapet and
petitioner No.4 is working as a lecturer and residing at Sircilla.
Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 never resided with A.1 and respondent
No.3. There are no specific allegations against petitioner Nos.2
to 4 and even against A.1 also. Only after filing divorce petition
by A.1, respondent No.3 filed this complaint with false
allegations under Section 498-A of IPC and under Section 3 and
4 of D.P.Act. As there are no specific allegations against the
petitioners, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the
petitioners.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3
would submit that there are allegations not only against A.1 but
also against A.2 to A.4. Due to the instigation of A.2 to A.4, A.1
had not shown interest in respondent No.3 and a panchayat
was also conducted before elders but due to the intervention of
A.2 to A.4, the matter was not settled. Now A.1 transferred his
property in the name of A.2 and A.3 which itself shows that A.2
to A.4 also have role in harassing respondent No.3. Hence,
prayed to dismiss this petition.
6. Considering the submissions made by the respective
counsel and the material placed on record, the allegations
against all these accused are that petitioner/A.1 at the
instigation of A.2 to A.4 harassed respondent No.3 for additional
dowry and also abused her at the instigation of A.2 to A.4 and
due to unbearable harassment, she left the company of A.1. As
seen from the record, there are no specific allegations against
A.2 to A.4. There are disputes between A.1 and respondent
No.3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta Vs State of
Jharkand 1, held that there must be specific allegations against
each of the accused and the family members of the
accused/husband cannot be roped into the case. The
allegations made against petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are very vague in
nature and there are no specific or distinct allegations. In view
of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kahkashan
Kausar @ Sonam Vs The State of Bihar 2, there must be
specific and distinct allegations against such person are
necessary and general omnibus allegation is not suffice to make
a person liable. In this case also there are no specific
allegations against petitioner Nos.2 to 4 to constitute offences
alleged. The allegations are mainly against A.1. As such, the
proceedings against petitioner Nos.2 to 4/A.2 to A.4 are liable to
be quashed and the petition against petitioner No.1/A.1 is liable
to be dismissed.
7. Having regard to the above discussion, the Criminal
Petition is partly allowed quashing the proceedings in
C.C.No.139 of 2024 pending on the file of II Additional Judicial
First Class Magistrate, Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kothagudem
1 (2010) 7 SCC 667
(2022) 6 SCC 599
District against petitioner Nos. 2 to 4/A.2 to A.4 and the
Criminal Petition in sofar as petitioner No.1/A.1 is concerned, it
is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
__________________
K. SUJANA, J
Date :18.08.2025
Rds
