Telangana High Court
B. Sujani vs The State Of Telangana on 4 November, 2025
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.4195 and 4248 of 2024
COMMON ORDER :
These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by
the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 seeking to quash the proceedings
against them in C.C.No.68 of 2024 on the file of the learned III Additional
Metropolitan Magistrate at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. The
petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 were alleged to have committed
offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 of IPC, while the
petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5 were alleged to have committed
offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC and Sections
3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. Since both the criminal petitions are arising out of C.C.No.68 of
2024, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.
3. Heard Mr. P.Animi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners,
and Mr. M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for respondent No.1-State. There is no representation for
respondent No.2-de facto complainant. Perused the record.
4. The petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 are the mother, father and
sister of accused No.1. The petitioner-accused No.5 is the husband of
the petitioner-accused No.4. As per the averments in the complaint,
dowry was given to the accused at the time of marriage on their demand.
After marriage, accused No.1 and de facto complainant lived together
with petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 for one month. When accused No.1
left for Bangalore in connection with his employment, the petitioners
harassed the de facto complainant physically and mentally, abused and
humiliated her. In May, 2022, when the de facto complainant visited the
house of petitioner-accused No.4 at Bangalore, petitioners-accused
Nos.2 and 4 demanded additional dowry and insisted her to transfer her
property in their names. Unable to bear such harassment, she went to
her parental house, but the accused refused to take her back. During her
stay in the matrimonial home, the accused never allowed her to talk to
anyone and never allowed her brother to come to their house. They also
threatened to kill her if she speaks with her parents and if she fails to
bring additional dowry. On the instigation of the petitioners, accused No.1
used to beat her and demand additional dowry. Finally on 30.08.2023,
when the de facto complainant went to her parents' house on the
occasion of Rakhi festival, the accused refused to take her back.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are
innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case by the de facto
complainant, only to wreck vengeance in view of the matrimonial
disputes between de facto complainant and accused No.1. The
petitioners never demanded the dowry or harassed the de facto
complainant. Due to the harassment of de facto complainant, accused
No.1 lost his job. The petitioners never resided under the same roof of
accused No.1 and the de facto complainant. It is alleged in the complaint
that the petitioners demanded additional dowry, but no specific date and
time was mentioned. The present complaint was lodged by the de facto
complainant on 13.12.2023, whereas, the marriage of de facto
complainant with accused No.1 was performed on 11.02.2022. The
reason for such delay remained unexplained. It is also contended that
except bald allegations, no specific overt acts are attributed to the
petitioners. Thus, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the
petitioners.
6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
contended that all the accused, including the petitioners herein, have
harassed the de facto complainant after her marriage with accused No.1
and being unable to bear the same, the present complaint has been
lodged. It is further contended that all the allegations levelled in the
complaint as well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of trial, and
hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage.
Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the petition.
7. For the sake of convenience, Section 498-A of IPC is extracted
hereunder:
498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty.--
Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a
woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and
shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.-- For the purpose of this
section, "cruelty" means--(a)any wilful conduct which is of such a
nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to
cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether
mental or physical) of the woman; or(b)harassment of the woman
where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any
person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any
property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or
any person related to her to meet such demand.
8. In the judgment of State of Haryana and others v. CH.Bhajan Lal
and others 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
The following categories of cases can be stated by way of
illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or
the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be
exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the
process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice,
though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly
defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or
rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of
cases wherein such power should be exercised:
(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 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 F.I.R. do not disclose
a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police
officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an
1992 SCC (Cri) 426
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;
(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.
9. In the judgment of Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State
of Telangana and another 2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraph
Nos.18, 25, 31 and 32 held that:
"18. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations
made by respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Other than
claiming that appellant No.1 harassed her and that appellant
Nos.2 to 6 instigated him to do so, respondent No.2 has not
provided any specific details or described any particular
instance of harassment. She has also not mentioned the time,
date, place, or manner in which the alleged harassment
occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise
allegations.
2024 INSC 953
25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a
criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without
specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be
nipped in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of
judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all
the members of the husband's family when domestic disputes
arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and
sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or
particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal
prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to
prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and
avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. In
the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of
the family of appellant No.1 have been living in different cities
and have not resided in the matrimonial house of appellant
No.1 and respondent No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be
dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an
abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific
allegations made against each of them.
31. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand
(2010) 7 SCC 667 held that the courts have to be extremely
careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must
take pragmatic realties into consideration while dealing with
matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment by the
husband's close relatives who had been living in different cities
and never visited or rarely visited the place where the
complainant resided would have an entirely different
complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to
be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.
32. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FIR
No.82 of 2022 filed by respondent No.2 was initiated with
ulterior motives to settle personal scores and grudges against
appellant No.1 and his family members i.e., appellant Nos.2 to 6
herein. Hence, the present case at hand falls within category (7)
of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lal. Therefore,
the High Court, in the present case, erred in not exercising the
powers available to it under Section 482 CrPC and thereby
failed to prevent abuse of the Court's process by continuing the
criminal prosecution against the appellants."
10. In numerous cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with
similar cases held that making vague and generalised allegations during
matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal
processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a
wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section
498-A of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek
compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Therefore, the
Courts are bound to ensure whether there is any prima facie case
against the husband and his family members before prosecuting the
husband and his family members.
11. In the present case, admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to
the marriage between the de facto complainant and accused No.1. As per
the contents of the complaint, the marriage between the de facto
complainant and accused No.1 was solemnized on 11.02.2022. It is
further stated that after one month of marriage, the accused started
harassing her, and since, 30.08.2023, the de facto complainant has been
residing at her parental house. However, the present complaint was
lodged by the de facto complainant on 13.12.2023, without any
satisfactory or plausible explanation for the delay caused in lodging the
complaint. If really there was harassment as alleged, the de facto
complainant would not have remained silent for such a considerable
period and would have complained much earlier.
12. On a careful perusal of contents of the entire charge sheet, it is
evident that there are no descriptive particulars as to in what manner the
petitioners herein have subjected the de facto complainant to harassment
or cruelty or demand of dowry, except stating that they have instigated
accused No.1 in harassing the de facto complainant. It is also not the
case of the de facto complainant that any dowry article was handed over
to the petitioners herein. It is evident from the complaint that the
petitioners are living separately from accused No.1 and de facto
complainant.
13. For the foregoing discussion and in view of the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, the petitioners-
accused Nos.2 to 5 cannot be put to the ordeal of trial especially when
there were no allegations of cruelty or harassment for or in relation to
demand of dowry against her.
14. Accordingly, both the Criminal Petitions are allowed, quashing the
proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 in C.C.No.68 of
2024 on the file of the learned III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at
L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date: 04.11.2025
rev
