Telangana High Court
Gampala Jayaraj, vs The State Of Telangana, on 20 June, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.16270 OF 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS')
by the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 6 to quash the
proceedings against them in C.C.No.1289 of 2024 on the file of
the learned VIII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at
Medchal, Athevelly. The offences alleged against the
petitioners are under Sections 498-A of Indian Penal Code (for
short "IPC") and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for
short "D.P.Act").
2. The complainant, Smt. Siddani Sreelekha-2nd
respondent, has lodged a complaint against her husband,
Jayaraj Bharath Simha Raidu (A.1) and her in-laws. It is
alleged that her marriage was performed with A.1 on
05.02.2024. At the time of marriage, A.1 denied dowry. As
the father of 2nd respondent expired her marriage was
performed by her maternal uncle, aunt and other relatives and
SKS,J
cash of Rs.1 Lakh was given. She alleges that after the
marriage, her husband (A.1), father-in-law (A.2), and mother-
in-law (A.3) started harassing her for additional dowry of
Rs.50 lakhs. Her sisters-in-law also allegedly blamed her for
every petty issue and harassed her mentally and physically by
saying that she had illegal affairs. It is further alleged that
from 22.03.2023 to 27.03.2024, the 2nd respondent went to
church for which, A.1 was angry and on 28.03.2024, A.1
allegedly drove his bike in a rash and negligent manner,
causing an accident that injured her. When the 2nd
respondent's mother and maternal uncle visited her, A.1
abused them in filthy language, broke furniture, and lodged a
false complaint against them. The 2nd respondent claims that
she was subjected to unbearable harassment and had to leave
her matrimonial home on 18.04.2024, to escape further harm.
The 2nd respondent fears for her safety, alleging that her
husband and in-laws may harm or even kill her. As such, she
requested the police for taking necessary action against the
petitioners.
3. Heard Sri Baglekar Akash Kumar, learned counsel for
the petitioners, Sri N. Naveen Raj, legal aid counsel appearing
SKS,J
for 2nd respondent and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent-State.
4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is
that the marriage between the 2nd respondent and accused
No. 1 took place on 05.02.2024, that the allegations of dowry
demand and harassment are false and baseless. They claim
that the 2nd respondent's family gave Rs.1 lakh towards
reception expenses out of goodwill, but the petitioners' family
spent approximately Rs.10 lakhs on the reception. The
petitioners claim that the allegations against them are
omnibus and lack specific details. They submit that there is
no evidence to support the allegations of dowry demand and
harassment. The petitioners also claim that they
accommodated the 2nd respondent's family in their home for
almost 36 days due to their financial difficulties, which shows
that they did not have any intention to harass the 2nd
respondent. The petitioners deny the allegations of dowry
demand and harassment. They claim that the 2nd respondent
struggled to adjust to the matrimonial home and frequently
visited her mother's house. They also allege that the 2nd
SKS,J
respondent fabricated harassment allegations to end the
marriage.
5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the
petitioners relied on the judgment in Rapolu Dasari Kavitha
v. State of Telangana 1, Kahkashan Kausar v. State of
Bihar 2 wherein it was observed that false implication by way
of general omnibus allegations made in the course of
matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse
of process of law. He also relied on the judgment in Golla
Bhaskar Yadav v. State of Telangana 3 wherein it was held
that the relatives of the husband should not be roped in
criminal cases on the basis of omnibus allegations. Unless
specific instances of harassment by the relatives of the
husband are pointed out, they cannot be subjected to undue
harassment through initiation of criminal proceedings.
Learned counsel further contended that neither the petitioners
nor their family members have received any amount towards
dowry nor they demanded any dowry as alleged by the 2nd
1 2021 SCC Online TS 307
2 (2022) 6 SCC 599
3 2022 SCC Online TS 2452
SKS,J
respondent. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against
the petitioners.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent
opposed the petition contending that the allegations made in
the complaint prima facie disclose commission of offences by
the petitioners, and as such, the petition is liable to be
dismissed.
7. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel
and the material on record, it is evident that the allegations
against the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 6 are general and
omnibus in nature, without attributing any specific overt acts.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta v. State of
Jharkhand 4 and Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar has
categorically held that in matrimonial disputes, false
implication of relatives by way of general allegations should be
discouraged and the Court should exercise its jurisdiction
under Section 482 Cr.P.C (now Section 528 BNSS) to prevent
misuse of the criminal justice system. In the present case,
4 (2010) 7 SCC 667
SKS,J
except for broad allegations of harassment and dowry
demand, there are no specific instances or material placed on
record to substantiate the complicity of petitioners/Accused
Nos.2 to 6. Therefore, continuation of criminal proceedings
against the petitioners would amount to abuse of process of
law. As such, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners
are liable to be quashed.
8. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the
proceedings against the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 6 in
C.C.No.1289 of 2024 on the file of VIII Additional Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Medchal, Athevelly, are hereby
quashed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 20.06.2025
SAI
SKS,J
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.16270 OF 2024
Date: 20.06.2025
SAI
