Telangana High Court
Jalla Sangeetha vs The State Of Telangana on 1 July, 2025
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5777 and 6412 of 2023
COMMON ORDER:
These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by
the petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5 seeking to quash the proceedings
against them in C.C.No.1571 of 2021 on the file of the learned V
Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar (for short
'trial Court'), arising out of Crime No.351 of 2019 of W.P.S. Saroornagar.
The offences alleged against the petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5 are
under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for
short 'IPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for
short 'the Act').
2. Since both the criminal petitions are arising out of C.C.No.1571 of
2021, they are heard together and disposed of by way of this common
order.
3. Heard Mr. Kiran Palakurthi, learned counsel for the petitioners,
Mr. D.Anantha Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2-de facto
complainant and Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent-State. Perused the record.
4. The petitioner-accused No.4 is the brother and the petitioner-
accused No.5 is the paternal aunt of accused No.1.
5. According to the complaint, the allegation against the petitioners-
accused Nos.4 and 5 is that they have instigated accused Nos.1 to 3 in
harassing the de facto complainant. When the de facto complainant was
at her parental home, the petitioner-accused No.4 assisted accused No.1
in vacating the rented premises, where accused No.1 and de facto
complainant had been residing. The petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5,
along with other accused in the crime, have threatened the de facto
complainant to see her end, if she blames them in the society.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that the
petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the case
by the de facto complainant, only to wreck vengeance in view of the
matrimonial disputes between the de facto complainant and accused
No.1. It is contended that the petitioner-accused No.5 is staying away
from de facto complainant and accused No.1, therefore, there was no
occasion or necessity for her to harass the de facto complainant. It is
further contended that the de facto complainant has intentionally
deserted accused No.1. Accused No.1 has issued a notice, dated
29.10.2019 to the de facto complainant seeking restitution of conjugal
rights. As a counterblast to the said notice, the present complaint was
foisted against the petitioners and other accused with all false
allegations. The present complaint was filed in 2019, whereas, the
marriage of de facto complainant with accused No.1 was performed in
2014. The reason for such delay also remained unexplained. It is also
contended that except bald allegations, no specific overt acts are
attributed to the petitioners. Thus, he prayed to quash the proceedings
against the petitioners.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd
respondent and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor in one tone
contended that all the accused, including the petitioners herein, have
harassed the de facto complainant after her marriage with accused No.1
and unable to bear the same, the present complaint has been lodged. It
is further contended that all the allegations levelled in the complaint as
well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of trial, and hence, this is
not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, they
prayed to dismiss the petition.
8. For the sake of convenience, Section 498-A of IPC is extracted
hereunder:
498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty.--
Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a
woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and
shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.-- For the purpose of this
section, "cruelty" means--(a)any wilful conduct which is of such a
nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to
cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether
mental or physical) of the woman; or(b)harassment of the woman
where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any
person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any
property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or
any person related to her to meet such demand.
9. In the judgment of State of Haryana and others v. CH.Bhajan Lal
and others 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
The following categories of cases can be stated by way of
illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or
the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be
exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the
process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice,
though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly
defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or
rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of
cases wherein such power should be exercised:
(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information
Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case against the
accused;
(2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and
other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose
a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police
officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an
order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the
Code;
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do
not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a
case against the accused;
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without
an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2)
of the Code;
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so
absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
1992 SCC (Cri) 426
continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing
efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance
on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private
and personal grudge.
10. In the judgment of Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State
of Telangana and another 2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraph
Nos.31 and 32 held that:
"31. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand
(2010) 7 SCC 667 held that the courts have to be extremely
careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must
take pragmatic realties into consideration while dealing with
matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment by the
husband's close relatives who had been living in different cities
and never visited or rarely visited the place where the
complainant resided would have an entirely different
complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to
be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.
32. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FIR
No.82 of 2022 filed by respondent No.2 was initiated with
ulterior motives to settle personal scores and grudges against
appellant No.1 and his family members i.e., appellant Nos.2 to 6
herein. Hence, the present case at hand falls within category (7)
of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lal. Therefore,
the High Court, in the present case, erred in not exercising the
powers available to it under Section 482 CrPC and thereby
failed to prevent abuse of the Court's process by continuing the
criminal prosecution against the appellants."
11. In numerous cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with
similar cases held that making vague and generalised allegations during
matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal
processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a
wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section
2024 INSC 953
498-A of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek
compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Therefore, the
Courts are bound to ensure whether there is any prima facie case
against the husband and his family members before prosecuting the
husband and his family members.
12. In the present case, admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to
the marriage between the de facto complainant and accused No.1.
It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner-accused No.5, who is the
paternal aunt of accused No.1, is staying away from the family of de facto
complainant and accused No.1. Therefore, there was no occasion or
necessity for her to harass the de facto complainant. Even though the
marriage of de facto complainant with accused No.1 was performed in
2014, the present complaint was lodged in 2019. If there was really
harassment, the de facto complainant should have complained much
earlier. The reason for such delay remained unexplained.
13. Apart from that, a perusal of the record would indicate that no
substantial and specific allegations have been made against the
petitioners herein, except stating that they have instigated accused No.1
in harassing the de facto complainant. Not even a single instance of
harassment or cruelty or demand of dowry had been referred against the
petitioners. There are no specific allegations against the petitioners
herein as to how they have voluntarily caused hurt; intentionally insulted
the de facto complainant with an intent to provoke breach of the peace
and in what manner they have threatened the de facto complainant
causing criminal intimidation. No medical certificate is filed to prove the
injuries suffered by the de facto complainant. In the said circumstances
and in view of the judgments referred to above, the petitioners-accused
Nos.4 and 5 cannot be put to the ordeal of trial especially when there are
no specific allegations against them.
14. Accordingly, these Criminal Petitions are allowed, quashing the
proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5 in C.C.No.1571
of 2021 on the file of the learned V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,
Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date: 01.07.2025
rev
