Telangana High Court
D.Santosha vs The State Of Telangana on 19 June, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6047 of 2025
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed seeking the Court to
quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.2 in
C.C.No.4622 of 2022 on the file of the learned XIII Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad,
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A
and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short
'DP Act').
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de
facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Police against
the petitioner and other accused. She stated that she got
married to accused No.1/D. Yadagiri on 27.05.2011 in an
arranged marriage. After the marriage, her husband initially
appeared kind, but soon his true nature emerged. They have
two children together. Her mother-in-law constantly taunts
her and complains to her husband about her household work,
which leads to physical abuse by her husband. Her in-laws,
SKS,J
including her mother-in-law, sister-in-law, and brother-in-law,
harass her for dowry and instigate her husband against her.
They also defame her in front of relatives and friends by
sharing her personal matters. Her husband has physically
abused her, including attempting to strangle her and throwing
her down the stairs. He does not take care of their children or
pay their school fees. They further harass her for not working
or for not giving them enough money when she does work.
Despite several panchayats (mediations) attempting to mend
the relationship, the abuse continues.
3. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a
case in Crime No.626 of 2021 for the offences punishable
under Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of the
DP Act, and after completion of investigation, they filed charge
sheet, vide C.C.No.4622 of 2022, before the learned XIII
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally,
Hyderabad.
4. Heard Sri M.N. Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as
Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public
SKS,J
Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State.
Though notice served upon respondent No.2, none appeared
on her behalf.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner was wrongly implicated in the said case and the
allegations leveled against her, prima facie, do not constitute
any offence as alleged in the complaint. He further submitted
that the petitioner never interfered in the matrimonial
disputes between accused No.1 and respondent No.2. Police
filed the charge sheet without verifying the matter and there
are no specific allegations against the petitioner except stating
that she supported accused No.1. Therefore, he prayed the
Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
6. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
submitted that the complaint itself shows that there are
allegations against the petitioner. The petitioner is the mother
of accused No.1 harassed respondent No.2. Therefore, the
allegations leveled against the petitioner require trial and
prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.
SKS,J
7. In the light of the submissions made by both the
learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on
record, it appears that the petitioner is the mother of accused
No.1 and the allegations leveled against her are that she
harassed respondent No.2 and demanded additional dowry. It
is specifically contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the petitioner is not residing with accused
No.1 and respondent No.2 and further contended that except
supporting accused No.1, she never interfered with the
matrimonial disputes between them.
8. At this stage, it is imperative to note the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana
and another 1 , wherein in paragraph No.35, it is held as
under:
"35. In one of the recent pronouncements
of this Court in Mahmood Ali and Ors vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 950, authored by one of us (J.B.
Pardiwala, j.), the legal principle applicable
apropos Section 482 of the Cr.P.C was
examined. Therein, it was observed that
when an accused comes before the High
Criminal Appeal No. 2379 of 2024
SKS,J
Court, invoking either the inherent power
under Section 482 Cr.P.c or the 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 of wreaking vengeance, then in
such circumstances, the High Court owes a
duty to look into the FIR with care and a little
more closely. It was further observed that it
will not be 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 as, 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, to
try and read between the lines."
9. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Achin
Gupta (cited supra), the averments in the complaint has to
disclose the alleged ingredients of the offences. In the present
case, except omnibus allegations, there are no other specific
allegations against the petitioner, who is the mother of
accused No.1. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Preeti
SKS,J
Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand 2, has observed that the family
members, who are residing away from accused No.1, cannot
be roped into the case. In the present case, the allegations
against the petitioner are that she instigated accused No.1 to
demand additional dowry and also harassed her physically
and mentally. Except these bald allegations, there are no
specific allegations against the petitioner. In view thereof, as
the petitioner is not residing along with accused No.1, the
allegations against her are considered to be vague. Therefore,
this Court is of the considered view that even if the trial is
conducted, no purpose would be served and that since there
are no other specific allegations against the petitioner, the
proceedings against them are liable to be quashed. Further,
the prosecution is directed to take steps to verify the death of
accused No.1 by obtaining the death certificate and to file an
appropriate application before the trial Court in accordance
with the law.
10. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the
proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.4622 of 2022 on
(2010) 7 SCC 667
SKS,J
the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand
closed.
___________
K. SUJANA
Date: 19.06.2025
SAI
SKS,J
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6047 of 2025
Date: 19.06.2025
SAI
