Chinthakayala Srivani Alias Jhansi vs The State Of T.S.
2025 Latest Caselaw 4153 Tel

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 4153 Tel
Judgement Date : 23 June, 2025

Telangana High Court

Chinthakayala Srivani Alias Jhansi vs The State Of T.S. on 23 June, 2025

       THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA


          CRIMINAL PETITION No.15696 of 2024


ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking the Court to

quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.7

and 8 in C.C.No.810 of 2022 on the file of the learned

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kodad, 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, as per the prosecution, are

that on 25.07.2022, respondent No.2/de-facto complainant

lodged a complaint with the police at Munagala Village,

Suryapet District, stating that her marriage with accused No.1

took place on 13.10.2018. At the time of marriage, her

parents allegedly gave one acre of land, Rs.50,000 in cash,

and 12 thulas of gold to Accused No.1. After marriage, she

joined her husband in Hyderabad. It is alleged that accused

No.1 neglected and harassed her physically and mentally.

While residing together in Hyderabad, she conceived and gave

SKS,J

birth to a baby boy, who is now about 4 years old.

Respondent No.2 further alleged that her husband and other

accused demanded additional dowry, physically assaulted her,

and refused to allow her to stay with them unless she fulfilled

their demands.

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

case in Crime No.132 of 2022 for the offences punishable

under Sections 498-A of IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act,

and after completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet,

vide C.C.No.810 of 2022, before the learned Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kodad. Aggrieved thereby,

the present criminal petition is filed by the

petitioners/accused Nos.7 and 8 to quash the proceedings

against them.

4. Heard Sri Dogiparthi Srikanth, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as

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.

SKS,J

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

petitioners was wrongly implicated in the said case and the

allegations leveled against them, prima facie, do not constitute

any offence as alleged in the complaint. He further submitted

that the petitioners 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 petitioners except

stating that they supported accused No.1. Therefore, he

prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the

petitioners.

6. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

submitted that the complaint itself shows that there are

allegations against the petitioners. Therefore, the allegations

leveled against the petitioners require trial and prayed the

Court to dismiss the petition.

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 allegations leveled against them are

that they harassed respondent No.2 and demanded additional

SKS,J

dowry. It is specifically contended by the learned counsel for

the petitioners is that the petitioners are not residing with

accused No.1 and respondent No.2 and further contended

that except supporting accused No.1, they 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 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

Criminal Appeal No. 2379 of 2024

SKS,J

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 petitioners. Further, the Hon'ble Apex

Court in Preeti 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 petitioners are that she instigated

accused No.1 to demand additional dowry and also harassed

her physically and mentally. Except these bald allegations,

(2010) 7 SCC 667