Kadivendi Harikrishna vs The State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 4072 Tel

Telangana High Court

Kadivendi Harikrishna vs The State Of Telangana on 19 June, 2025

         THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA


            CRIMINAL PETITION No.3676 of 2025


ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking the Court to

quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused

Nos.1 to 8 in C.C.No.236 of 2024 on the file of the learned

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Mulugu, registered for the offences punishable

under Sections 498 (A) 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 stating that she got married to petitioner

No.1/accused No.1, Kadivendi Harikrishna, on 04.05.2023.

At the time of marriage, her parents gave him 1.5 tolas of

gold ornaments, household items, Rs.5 lakhs in cash, and 4

guntas of land as dowry. Initially, her husband treated her

well for two months, but thereafter he began harassing her

SKS,J

both mentally and physically. He was upset that her

parents could not get the land registered in her name and

that they would not receive the Kalyana Laxmi Scheme

amount. He also suspected her character and demanded an

additional Rs.10 lakhs as dowry. Further, her in-laws also

participated in the harassment. Despite the abuse, she

stayed with them for a month, but they eventually threw her

out of the house on 22.08.2023. Her father attempted to

resolve the matter through a panchayat with the assistance

of caste elders, but her in-laws refused to take her back,

stating they would not continue the marital relationship.

3. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a

case in Crime No.332 of 2023 for the offences punishable

under Sections 498 (A) of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the

DP Act and after completion of investigation, they filed

charge sheet vide C.C.No.236 of 2024 before the learned

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Mulugu. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed

the present criminal petition.

SKS,J

4. Heard Sri Veera Babu Gandu, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Sri M.

Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public 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 petitioners submitted that the

entire prosecution initiated against the petitioners is nothing

but a gross abuse of process of law and that the complaint

lodged by the 2nd respondent is motivated by malice and

filed with an ulterior intention to harass the petitioners,

especially after petitioner No.1 issued a legal notice seeking

divorce. He further submitted that except for petitioner

No.1, the remaining petitioners are relatives who do not

reside with the 2nd respondent and have been falsely

implicated without any specific, distinct, or overt allegations

against them and that the FIR and charge sheet merely

contain vague, omnibus, and general statements, without

mentioning any specific acts, dates, or incidents to attract

the offences under Section 498-A IPC or Sections 3 and 4 of

the Dowry Prohibition Act.

SKS,J

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the

Police failed to conduct a preliminary enquiry before

registration of the FIR as mandated by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P. 1, thereby rendering

the entire investigation and charge sheet unsustainable in

law. Reliance is also placed on various judgments of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court including Kahkashan Kausar v.

State of Bihar, Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand 2, and

State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 3, wherein it was held that

vague and baseless allegations against relatives, without

supporting material, deserve to be quashed at the threshold.

Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings

against the petitioners by allowing this criminal petition.

7. On the other hand, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor submitted that the matter is at the stage of trial

and there are serious allegations against the petitioners.

Therefore, at this stage quashing of proceedings against

2014 (2) SCC 1

(2010) 7 SCC 667

1992 supp (1) SCC 335

SKS,J

them do not arise and prayed the Court to dismiss the

criminal petition.

8. In the light of the submissions made by both the

learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on

record, it is to be noted that the marriage of daughter of

respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1 was performed way

back in the year 2023. Thereafter, disputes arose between

them. Later, petitioner No.1 harassed respondent No.2

mentally and physically.

9. At this stage, it is pertinent to note the observations

made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajanlal (cited

supra), 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

SKS,J

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 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.

SKS,J

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."

10. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Preeti Gupta

(cited supra), has observed that the family members who are

residing away from accused No.1, cannot be roped into the

case. In view thereof, as petitioner Nos.2 to 8 are not

residing along with petitioner No.1, the allegations against

them are considered to be vague. Therefore, it can be said

that category No.7, as extracted above, is relevant to the

present case. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view

that even if the trial is conducted, no purpose would be

served as there are no other specific allegations against

petitioner Nos.2 to 8.

SKS,J

11. That apart, the allegation against petitioner No.1 is

that he harassed respondent No.2 physically and mentally

and suspected her character and demanded an additional

Rs.10 lakhs as dowry. Further, as seen from the record, the

specific allegations against accused No.1 in the complaint.

When there are serious allegations, which are factual

disputes, this Court cannot be considered at this stage,

which requires trial. Therefore, the petition against

petitioner No.1/accused No.1 is liable to be dismissed and

the proceedings against petitioner Nos.2 to 8/accused Nos.2

to 8 are liable to be quashed.

12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed-in-part

and the proceedings against petitioner Nos.2 to 8/accused

Nos.2 to 8 in C.C.No.236 of 2024 on the file of the learned

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Mulugu, are hereby quashed while permitting

the trial Court to proceed further against petitioner

No.1/accused No.1. Further, if there are no warrants

pending against the petitioner No.1/accused No.1, the

appearance of petitioner No.1/accused No.1 before the trial

Court is dispensed with whenever his presence is not

SKS,J

required subject to the condition that the petitioner

No.1/accused No.1 is being represented by his counsel on

every date of hearing and in case of non-appearance of

petitioner No.1/accused No.1 on the specific date so fixed by

the trial Court for appearance, this order gets vacated

automatically.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also

stand closed.

_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 19.06.2025

SAI