Telangana High Court
Gopal Jayasree vs State Of Telangana on 29 August, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
+ CRIMINAL PETITION No.3237 OF 2022
% Dated 29.08.2025
# Gopal Jayasree W/o.Gopal Sudhakar
Aged: 55 years, Occ: Housewife
R/o.H.No.2-6-1033/G-4, K.S. Residency,
K.L.N. Reddy Colony, Hanamkonda
and three others
....Petitioners
VERSUS
$ State of Telangana
Rep. by the Public Prosecutor
High Court at Hyderabad
and another
... Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioners : Mr.Chaitanya Mithra
^ Counsel for Respondents : Mr. Srikanth Hariharan (R.2)
Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy
Assistant Public Prosecutor (R.1)
< GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? CITATIONS:
1. 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
2. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 263
2
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3237 of 2022
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the
petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5 seeking to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.14743 of 2019 on the file of the XIII
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally,
Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A
and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC')
and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for
short, 'the D.P. Act')
2. Brief facts of the case:
Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 05.06.2018 at
about 12:00 hours stating that for the past two years her
husband/accused No.1 had failed to provide any financial
support to her or their minor son, deliberately changed his
contact details in the USA and absconded to an unknown
place. She further stated that her in-laws i.e., petitioner Nos.1
and 2 were also withholding his address and phone number,
thereby isolating her and they colluded together to demand
additional dowry of Rs.25,00,000/- and gold and continuously
harassed her, thereby, spoiled her marital life and the future
prospects of her son. Since her parents were unable to meet
the unlawful demands, she had been compelled to depend
entirely on them, which caused her severe mental and
physical suffering. She specifically named her husband,
petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and other relatives residing in India
and the USA as responsible for such harassment. She also
prayed that her husband's passport (No. K8792431, issued at
New York) be impounded and his whereabouts in the USA be
traced to secure his presence in India. She requested that the
accused be punished for dowry harassment and cruelty. On
receipt of the complaint, the Police registered the present
complaint and took up investigation. Pursuant to
investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the case was
numbered as C.C.No.14743 of 2019 on the file of the XII
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally,
Hyderabad, against accused No.1 and the petitioners, who
were arrayed as accused Nos.2 to 5.
3. Heard Mr. Vemulapati Pattabhi, learned Senior Counsel,
representing Mr. Chaitanya Mithra, learned counsel for the
petitioners, and Mrs. Prethi Pawar, learned counsel,
representing Mr. Srikanth Hariharan, learned counsel for
respondent No.2 and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned
counsel appearing for respondent No.1 State.
4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners:
4.1. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioners
have not committed any offence, much less the alleged
offences levelled against them. The marriage of accused No.1
was performed with respondent No.2 on 18.2.2014 and since
then they are living in the USA and respondent No.2 never
lived with petitioner Nos.1 and 2.
4.2. He further submitted that even according to the
complaint, entire allegations are levelled against accused
No.1, which arose in the USA. However, respondent No.2,
with an intention to dissolve the disputes between her and
accused No.1, roped all the family members of accused No.1
i.e., the petitioners, into the present crime by making
omnibus allegations, as petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the
parents, petitioner No.3 is the sister and petitioner No.4 is the
brother-in-law of accused No.4. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are
residing at Hanamkonda. Petitioner No.3 is a housewife and
petitioner No.4 is working as software engineer and they are
residing in the USA. At no point of time, the petitioners
harassed respondent No.2 for additional dowry nor committed
any criminal breach of trust. Hence, the offences under
Sections 498-A and 406 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the
D.P.Act are not attracted against the petitioners.
4.3. He further submitted that the Investigating Officer
without properly conducting investigation filed the charge
sheet on 28.01.2019 before the XIII Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, and the
learned Magistrate without examining the same, without
applying his mind has taken the cognizance, especially
without giving any reasons and the same is contrary to law.
4.4. He also submitted that even if the allegations in the
report and the statement of respondent No.2 and other
witnesses are considered on their face value, there is no
material to attract the offences punishable under Sections
498-A and 406 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act
against the petitioners. Hence, the continuation of the
proceedings against the petitioner would amounts to clear
abuse of process of law.
5. Submissions of learned counsel for respondent
No.2
5.1. Per contra, learned counsel submitted that there are
specific allegations levelled against the petitioners that they
have harassed respondent No.2 physically and mentally for
additional dowry. The witnesses in their statements
specifically mentioned the role of each of the petitioner and
the ingredients under Sections 498-A and 406 of the IPC and
Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act are attracted against the
petitioners. Whether the petitioners have committed the
offence or not will be revealed after full-fledged trial only and
the petitioners are not made out any ground to quash the
proceedings and the criminal petition filed by the petitioners
is liable to be dismissed.
Analysis:
6. This Court considered the rival submissions made by
the respective parties and perused the material available on
record. It is not in dispute that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the
parents, petitioner No.3 is the sister and petitioner No.4 is the
brother-in-law of accused No.1. The marriage of accused No.1
was performed with respondent No.2 on 18.12.2014.
According to the complaint and charge sheet, it reveals that
after the marriage, accused No.1 and respondent No.2 lived
together in the USA and they were blessed with one child on
14.09.2015. Even according to the allegations, accused No.1
harassed respondent No.2 for additional dowry and in the
year 2016 and he forcibly sent respondent No.2 to India and
since then she has been residing with her parents.
7. The record reveals that major allegations are levelled
against accused No.1 that he demanded additional dowry and
dragged her of his house forcibly in the month of April 2016.
The only allegation levelled against the petitioners is that they
supported accused No.1 in demanding additional dowry.
There are no specific allegations against the petitioners that
they committed any criminal breach of trust to attract the
ingredients under Section 506 of the IPC. Even according to
the allegations made in the complaint and charge sheet, the
alleged allegations are pertaining to the year 2016, which were
happened when respondent No.2 is residing in the USA with
accused No.1.
8. The record further reveals that petitioner Nos.1 and 2
are residing at Hanamkonda and they are aged about 58 and
72 years respectively. Petitioner No.3 is a housewife and
petitioner No.4 is discharging his duties as a software
engineer in the USA. The specific case of the petitioners is
that after marriage, accused No.1 and respondent No.2 are
living together in the USA and they never lived together along
with petitioner Nos.1 and 2 at Hanamkonda nor with
petitioner Nos.3 and 4.
9. The record reveals that the learned Magistrate has taken
cognizance without reflecting his satisfaction and without
assigning any reasons. It is trite law that there need not be a
detailed order while taking cognizance but should reflect the
objective satisfaction of the Presiding Officer.
10. It is pertinent to mention that the law governing the
exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or the
extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is well settled
by the decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1, wherein the
Hon'ble Apex Court illustratively catalogued categories of
cases warranting quashment, such as when the allegations
taken at face value do not constitute an offence, are absurd or
inherently improbable, are actuated by mala fides, or where
continuance of proceedings would amount to abuse of
process, while cautioning that such power must be sparingly
invoked to secure the ends of justice.
11. It is also relevant to mention that in Geddam Jhansi v.
State of Telangana 2, the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the
principles that were invoked to quash criminal proceedings
under Sections 498-A, 506 IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961, and the Domestic Violence Act, 2005,
in so far as they related to the husband's aunt and cousin, as
the allegations against them were found to be omnibus and
general, bereft of specific overt acts, resting merely on hearsay
evidence, and further weakened by the fact that they resided
separately from the matrimonial home. The Court held that
dragging such distant relatives into criminal prosecution, in
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 263
the absence of clear particulars of harassment or dowry
demand, squarely attracted the Bhajan Lal principles, and
permitting the proceedings to continue would be nothing but
an abuse of the process of law.
12. In the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Geddam Jhansi supra and also in
the case of Ch.Bhajan Lal supra, this Court is of the
considered opinion that continuance of proceedings against
the petitioners for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406
of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act, would amount
to abuse of process of law.
13. The inherent powers of Court under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. be exercised to prevent abuse of process of Court.
When the allegations in the complaint presented by
respondent No.2 to the police or the statements of the
witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are not
constituting any prima facie case for the offences Sections
498-A and 406 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act
against the petitioners for the foregoing reasons, this Court
can exercise its power, in the light of judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Ch.Bhajanlal supra.
14. For the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that it is a fit case to invoke Section 482
Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the
petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5.
15. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The
proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5 for the
offences under Sections 498-A and 406 of the IPC and
Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act in C.C.No.14743 of 2019 on
the file of learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand
closed.
_______________________
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
Date: 29.08.2025
L.R. Copy to be marked.
mar
Issue C.C. in a week.
