Telangana High Court
Kistappa Bailpati B.Ramakrishnappa vs The State Of Telangana on 18 June, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.944 OF 2025
ORDER:
This Criminal Petitions is filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'the
BNSS') to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused
No.2 in Crime No.2 of 2025 on the file of Women Police Station,
Khammam, registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 85, 351(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'the BNS') and Sections 3, 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act').
2. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage of
accused No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized on
23.06.2023 at Madanpalle village, Palaveru Mandal, Karnataka
State and at the time of marriage, the parents of respondent
No.2 gave cash of Rs.5,50,000/-, 3 tulas of gold and household
articles worth Rs.50,000/- to accused No.1 as dowry. After the
marriage, the couple lead their marital life happily for three
months and thereafter, accused No.1, along with other accused,
used to harass respondent No.2 physically, mentally and also
used to threaten her with dire consequences for want of
additional dowry. It is stated that accused No.1 was already
SKS,J
married and having two children, however, he married
respondent No.2 by suppressing the said fact. Hence,
respondent No.2 filed a complaint vide Crime No.2 of 2025
before the Khammam Women Police Station.
3. Heard Sri C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State and Sri Phanidra Bhargav,
learned counsel for respondent No.2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
petitioner is innocent and he is no way concerned with the
alleged offences. He further submitted that except omnibus
allegations, there are no specific allegations against the
petitioner. He also submitted that in the absence of specific
allegations, the family members cannot be roped into the case.
In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the
judgments of the Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam
v. State of Bihar 1, Neelu Chopra and others v. Bharathi2
and prayed the Court to allow the Criminal Petition by quashing
the proceedings against the petitioner.
2022(6) SCC 599
2009(10) SCC 184
SKS,J
5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
for respondent No.1-State opposed the submissions of the
learned counsel for the petitioner stating that investigation has
not yet completed, at this stage, quashing of proceedings
against the petitioner does not arise and prayed the Court to
dismiss the Criminal Petition.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that at
the instigation of the petitioner/accused No.2, accused No.1
harassed respondent No.2 for want of additional dowry. He
further submitted that there are serious allegations against the
petitioner. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal
Petition.
7. In view of the rival submissions made by both the parties,
this Court has perused the material available on record. As per
the averments of the complaint, at the instigation of the
petitioner/accused No.2, accused No.1 harassed respondent
No.2 physically and mentally for want of additional dowry. It is
pertinent to note that except the above allegation, there are no
specific allegations against the petitioner and he is no way
concerned with the matrimonial disputes between accused No.1
and respondent No.2. Admittedly, the only allegation against the
SKS,J
petitioner/accused No.2 is that he supported accused No.1 in
harassing respondent No.2 for want of additional dowry.
8. At this stage, it is relevant to note the observations made
by the Apex Court in State of Haryana and others vs.
Bhajanlal 3, whereunder the following categories were
illustrated, wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226
of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the High Court to
prevent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice. The said categories are extracted as under:
"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 FIR 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
1992 supp (1) SCC 335
SKS,J
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 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."
9. Further, in Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand 4 and
Geeta Mehrotra v. State of Uttar Pradesh 5, the Apex Court
observed that the family members of accused No.1 cannot be
roped into the case. It is noteworthy that except the omnibus
allegations, there are no specific allegations against the father of
accused No.1 i.e., the petitioner/accused No.2, who is aged
about 77 years and suffering from old age ailments. Therefore, it
can be said that category No.1 as extracted above in the case of
Bhajanlal (Supra) is relevant to the present case. Hence, this
(2010) 7 SCC 667
(2012) 10 SCC 741
SKS,J
Court is of the considered view that even if the trial is
conducted, no purpose would be served and there are no other
specific allegations against the petitioner.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is Allowed and the
proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.2 in Crime No.2
of 2025 on the file of Women Police Station, Khammam, are
hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
_____________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 18.06.2025
gms
