Telangana High Court
Smt Vallapu Somya And 2 Others vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 10 June, 2025
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
*****
Criminal Petition No.9531 of 2022
Between:
Vallapu Somya and others
.....Petitioners
And
The State of Telangana, rep. by Public Prosecutor and another
.......Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 10.06.2025
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes/No
may be allowed to see the Judgment ?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes/No
marked to Law Reporters/Journals ?
3. Whether Their Ladyship/ Lordship wish to : Yes/No
see the fair copy of the judgment ?
____________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
2
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
Criminal Petition No.9531 of 2022
DATE: 10.06.2025
Between :
Vallapu Somya and others
.....Petitioners
And
The State of Telangana, rep. by Public Prosecutor and another
.......Respondents
For petitioner : Mr. T.Surya Satish
For Respondents : Mrs. Madhavi, Assistant Public
Prosecutor for respondent-State.
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? CITATIONS:
1992 SCC (Cri) 426
2023 INSC 684
2024 INSC 953
3
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9531 of 2022
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the
petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 seeking to quash the proceedings against
them in C.C.No.589 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-
cum-Metropolitan Magistrate at Malkajgiri (previously Additional XVII
Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri at Cyberabad) (for short 'trial Court'),
pertaining to Crime No.160 of 2022 of P.S. Malkajgiri, registered for the
offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').
2. Heard Mr. T.Surya Satish, learned counsel for the petitioners and
Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent-State. Inspite of service of notice, none appears for
respondent No.2. Perused the record.
3. The gist of the complaint is that the 2nd respondent-de facto
complainant was married to one Vallapu Akhilesh on 23.11.2017. At the
time of marriage, certain amount of dowry was given. Accused No.1 and
petitioner-accused No.2 are the mother and sister of Akhilesh. The
petitioner-accused No.4 is the husband of petitioner-accused No.2 and
they are residing in the house of accused No.1. The petitioner-accused
No.3 is the maternal aunt of Akhilesh. After one month from the date of
marriage, all the accused harassed her physically and mentally to do a
job. The petitioners also harassed the de facto complainant that she
could not give birth to child, they would have got more dowry if Akhilesh
was married to another girl and used to instigate her to divorce her
husband. Thereafter, out of wedlock, the de facto complainant was
blessed with a baby girl. The petitioners took the dowry given to her
husband at the time of marriage, illegally occupied the medical shop of
her husband, abused the de facto complainant in filthy language, also
promised to pay the debts of her husband and driven them out of the
house. The petitioners are not allowing the de facto complainant and her
husband to enter the house.
4. 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 and her husband in collusion with the Police
only to wreck vengeance and to grab the ancestral property. The
petitioner-accused No.3 along with her brother namely V.Om Prakash,
who is the father of Akhilesh, have filed a civil suit vide O.S.No.46 of
2021 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Malkajgiri
(previously XVI Additional District Judge, Malkajgiri), questioning the gift
deed dated 13.10.2015 which was fraudulently executed by the de facto
complainant's husband from his grandfather by cheating the family
members. There are case and counter cases between the parties. It is
further contended that the de facto complainant and her husband have
absconded as they took huge loans from various persons, again surfaced
after the petitioners have paid substantial amounts towards loans and
had now cast an eye on the house property of the parents. The de facto
complainant and her husband left the house of petitioners in January,
2019 and they never returned due to the fear of creditors. It is further
contended that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners
and the ingredients of offence under Section 498-A of IPC are not made
out. Thus, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
submitted that the matter is coming up for trial in the trial Court on
08.07.2025. 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, she prayed to dismiss
the petition.
6. 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.
7. 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;
1992 SCC (Cri) 426
(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
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.
8. Before appreciating the merits in the present case, it is necessary
to refer to the view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing
with situations akin to that which arises in the present matter. In
Mahmood Ali and others. v. State of U.P and others 2, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed that when an accused comes before the
Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. or
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the
FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that
such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with
the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances
the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more
closely. Because once the complainant decides to proceed against the
accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc.,
then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all
2023 INSC 684
the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the
averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the
necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will
not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the
FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the
necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or
not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look
into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the
case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and
circumspection try to read in between the lines.
9. In the judgment of Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State
of Telangana and another 3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraph
No.32 held that:
"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."
10. This is a peculiar case where the petitioners, being the family
members of de facto complainant's husband are accused of committing
an offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC, without a single
2024 INSC 953
allegation against her husband. Surprisingly, it is apparent from the
record that the allegations against the petitioners have been made by the
de facto complainant-wife, acting at the instance of her husband, whose
family members are the petitioners herein. Although Section 498-A of
IPC envisages cruelty inflicted upon a woman by a relative of the
husband, it is rare to see such allegations aimed at the relatives de hors
any accusation against the husband, but a plain reading of the F.I.R.
begins to unravel this mystery. There are property disputes between the
parties, which are purely civil in nature. With regard to the same, a civil
suit is pending between the parties. Case and counter cases are also
filed by and against the parties inter se.
11. The history of civil litigation between the de facto complainant and
her husband on one side and the petitioners on the other side clearly
exposes the true intention of de facto complainant in lodging the present
complaint. It demonstrates the personal interest of de facto complainant
and her husband in settling scores with the petitioners herein, who are
the family members of Akhilesh (de facto complainant's husband) in
respect of the family property. The FIR clearly discloses a proxy litigation
engaged by Akhilesh through his wife-de facto complainant against the
petitioners to settle property disputes. The FIR is nothing but a shot fired
by Akhilesh from his wife's shoulder to espouse his own cause of his
interest in his ancestral property. It is evident from the attending
circumstances in the case that the entire law enforcement machinery has
been set in motion by the de facto complainant only at Akhilesh's behest
and the Police machinery has been used for realizing private interest of
the de facto complainant and her husband. Hence, I am of the
considered view that the present complaint was filed with an ulterior
motive for wreaking personal vengeance on the petitioners in view of the
property disputes pending between the parties.
12. Apart from that, a bare perusal of the complaint, statement of
witnesses and the charge sheet shows that the allegations against the
petitioners are wholly general and omnibus in nature. Even if they are
taken in their entirety, they do not prima facie make out a case against
the petitioners herein. None of the petitioners have been attributed any
specific role in furtherance of the general and vague allegations made
against them. Moreover, the allegations are made only against the
husband's relatives. Though the de facto complainant has narrated
incidents of cruelty in the FIR, they do not fulfill the ingredients of Section
498-A of IPC and the material on record neither discloses any particulars
of the offence alleged nor discloses the specific role/allegations assigned
to any of the petitioners in the commission of the offences.
13. Having regard to the anxious consideration to the facts and
circumstances of the present case and in view of the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, I am of the
considered opinion that the continuation of criminal proceedings against
the petitioners amounts to sheer abuse of the process of law, and hence,
the proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed.
14. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the
proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 in C.C.No.589 of
2022 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Metropolitan
Magistrate at Malkajgiri (previously XVII Metropolitan Magistrate,
Malkajgiri at Cyberabad).
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date: 10.06.2025
Note: L.R. copy to be marked.
B/o.
rev
