Telangana High Court
Nali Laxmi And 3 Others vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 7 March, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11739 OF 2022
O R D E R:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners herein
seeking to quash the proceedings against them in S.C.No.21
of 2023, pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge,
Mahabubabad.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the de-facto
complainant marriage was performed with accused No.1 on
12.02.2020. At the time of the marriage, the parents of
de-facto complainant parents gave an amount of
Rs.15,00,000/-, 25 tulas of gold and 10 tulas of silver and
Rs.5,00,000/- worth house hold articles as dowry to accused
No.1. Therafter, they lead their marital life happily for a
period of one year. Later, accused No.1, along with other
accused persons, used to harass the de-facto complainant
physically and mentally and also used to threaten her with
dire consequences for want of additional dowry. As such, in
the presence of elders and Mahila Society, a panchayat was
EVV,J
held and father of the de-facto complainant's gave
Rs.50,00,000/- and also registered Ac.6 guntas of land in
Sy.No.57 at Sarvinagar on the name of de-facto complainant.
Since then the accused persons started harassing her to
register the said land on the name of accused No.1, due to
which, the de-facto complainant dialed to 100 and on 28th
March and 8th April, given counseling at Sakhi Centre
Mahabubad and advised to stay good but accused No.1
along with other accused persons again started threatening
the de-facto complainant with dire consequences. Hence, a
case was registered vide Crime No.94 of 2022 before the
Thorrur Police Station, Mahabubad and after completion of
investigation, a charge sheet was filed vide S.C.No.21 of
2023 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad, for the
offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 307 of the IPC
and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act.
3. Heard Sri M.V.Venu, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State and
EVV,J
Sri Kiran Palakurthi, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners firstly submitted
that except making omnibus false allegations, no specific
allegations have been made against the petitioners by the
de-facto complainant. He secondly submitted that though
there is no corroborative evidence to prove the alleged
offences, the petitioners were implicated in the case with
false and fabricated allegations. He lastly submitted that the
petitioners are no way concerned with the matrimonial
disputes arose between accused No.1 and the de-facto
complainant. In this regard, he placed reliance on the
judgments of Apex Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and
others v. State of Telangana and antoher 1, and prayed
the Court to allow the Criminal Petition by quashing the
proceedings against the petitioners.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent
No.2 opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the
1 2024 Law Suit (SC) 1108
EVV,J
petitioners, stating that the petitioners are conspired with
accused No.1 in harassing the de-facto complainant. Hence,
he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.
6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
submitted that since the charge sheet was filed after
completion of the investigation, a detailed trial has to be
conducted in order to elicit the true facts of the case and as
such, interference of this Court, at this stage, is not
warranted. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the
Criminal Petition.
7. At this stage, it is relevant to note the observations
made by the Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra v.
State of Uttar Pradesh2 at paragraph No.21 held as
under:
"21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note
of an apt observation of this Court recorded in the matter
of G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in (2000) 3
SCC 693 wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this
Court had held that the High Court should have quashed
the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute
wherein all family members had been roped into the
(2012) 10 SCC 741
EVV,J
matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside.
Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely
agree that:
12. ... There has been an outburst of matrimonial
dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred
ceremony, main purpose of which is to enable the
young couple to settle down in life and live
peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes
suddenly erupt which often assume serious
proportions resulting in heinous crimes in which
elders of the family are also involved with the result
that those who could have counselled and brought
about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their
being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There
are many reasons which need not be mentioned here
for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the
parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate
the disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead
of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes
years and years to conclude and in that process the
parties lose their "young" days in chasing their cases
in different courts."
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case,
considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the
petitioners, upon taking into consideration the aforesaid
decisions and the decision passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others Vs.
State of Bihar and Others3, this Court is of the opinion that
the contents of the F.I.R. reveal that general allegations are
leveled against the petitioners herein and no specific and
distinct allegations are made against them. In the absence of
any specific role attributed to the petitioners herein it would
3 2022 LawSuit (SC) 149
EVV,J
be unjust if they are forced to go through the tribulations of
the trial.
9. However, this Court, having respectable agreement with
the views taken by the Apex Court in aforesaid judgments, is
of the considered opinion that even if the trial is conducted,
no purpose would be served as there are no other specific
allegations against the petitioners. Therefore, the
proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed.
10. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the
proceedings against the petitioners herein in S.C.No.21 of
2023, pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge,
Mahabubabad, are here by quashed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
_____________________
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J
Date: 07.03.2025
FM
