Telangana High Court
Smt. Avula Kalpana And Another vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 18 November, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
+ CRIMINAL PETITION No.6988 OF 2020
% Dated 18.11.2025
# Smt. Avula Kalpana, W/o.A. Subramanyam,
Aged: 51 years, Occ: Housewife,
R/o.2/205, Narsingraopeta,
Gudur Town, Nellore District,
AP and another.
....Petitioners
VERSUS
$ The State of Telangana,
Through WPS Saroornagar,
Saroornagar, R.R. District,
Represented by its Public Prosecutor
High Court for the State of Telangana
at Hyderabad and another
... Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioners : Mr.G. S. Leo Raj
^ Counsel for Respondents : Mrs. C. Sriharshitha (R.2)
Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy
Assistant Public Prosecutor (R.1)
< GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? CITATIONS:
1. (2023) 16 SCC 666
2. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2355
3. 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
4. (2021) 19 SCC 401
5. (2022) 6 SCC 599
6. (2010) 7 SCC 667
7. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2621
8. 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
2
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6988 of 2020
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the
petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 seeking to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.4921 of 2020 on the file of the V
Additional Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-V Additional Junior
Civil Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, for the offences
punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, 'the D.P. Act').
2. Brief facts of the case:
Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 17.03.2020
stating that her marriage was solemnized with accused no.1 on
08.11.2019 at TNR Susheela A.C. Function Hall, Kothapet, as
per Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage, as per
the alleged demands of the petitioners and accused No.1, her
parents gave 70 tulas of gold ornaments, furniture, and spent
about Rs.45 lakhs towards the marriage expenses and
presentation. After the marriage, respondent No.2 joined her
matrimonial home at Gudur, where she lived with accused No.1
and his parents i.e., the petitioners herein, for a few days.
Thereafter, differences arose between her and accused No.1.
She stated that accused No.1 started ill-treating her, picking up
quarrels on petty issues, and insisting that she should quit her
employment. She further alleged that accused No.1, without
any reason, abused her and her family members, expressed that
he did not like her, and declared that he did not wish to have
children with her. The petitioners, being the parents of accused
No.1, failed to intervene and instead supported his behaviour.
She further alleged that accused No.1 demanded an additional
dowry of Rs.10 lakhs and that she had transferred an amount of
Rs. 55,000/- to his account. It was also alleged that accused
No.1 used to lock her inside the house, subject her to physical
and mental cruelty, and restrain her from visiting her parental
home. On one occasion, when her parents came to take her,
accused No.1 allegedly dropped her at Lakdikapool Metro
Station and sent her away, stating that he did not wish to
continue the marital relationship. Despite several attempts by
her parents and other elders to reconcile the differences,
accused No.1 continued to ill-treat and threaten her, and the
petitioners failed to restrain him or provide any support.
Basing on the said complaint, the police registered a case in
Crime No.123 of 2020 for the offences punishable under
Sections 498-A, 323, and 506 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of
the D.P. Act, against accused No.1 and the petitioners. The
Investigating Officer recorded the statements LWs.1 to 6,
collected evidence, and upon completion of investigation, filed a
charge sheet on 30.06.2020 before the V Additional
Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-V Additional Junior Civil Judge,
Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, and the case
was taken on file as C.C.No.4921 of 2020 and the learned
Magistrate issued summons to accused No.1 and the
petitioners.
3. Heard Mr. S. Leo Raj, learned for the petitioners,
Mr. B. Akash Kumar, learned counsel, representing
Mrs. C. Sriharshitha, learned counsel for respondent No.2, and
Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
appearing for respondent No.1-State.
4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners:
4.1. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have not
committed any offence and they were falsely implicated in the
present case on the ground that the petitioners are the parents
of accused No.1, especially respondent No.2 and accused No.1
were living separately after their marriage. The petitioners never
demanded respondent No.2 for additional dowry. The only
allegation levelled against the petitioners is that accused No.1 is
suffering with psychological illness and suppressing the said
factum, the petitioners performed the marriage of accused No.1
with respondent No.2 and they supported accused No.1 when
he demand additional dowry. The other allegations pertaining
to physical and mental harassment for additional dowry levelled
against accused No.1 only.
4.2. He further submitted that respondent No.2 filed
F.C.O.P.No.846 of 2020 on the file of the Judge, Family Court,
Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, for grant of decree of divorce
and the said O.P. was allowed on 19.01.2022. Similarly,
accused No.1 was also filed F.C.O.P.No.306 of 2022 on the file of
the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar,
and the said O.P. was also allowed on 12.09.2022 and granted
decree of divorce and the same has become final.
4.3. He also submitted that respondent No.2 in the complaint
specifically requested the police to take steps to recover the
amount of money spent on her marriage by her parents and
arrange for mutual divorce with accused No.1 and she no longer
to join with him. The said allegations are purely civil in nature
and the ingredients for the offences levelled against the
petitioners are not attracted and the continuation of the
proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse of the
process of law.
4.4. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Abhishek v. State of Madhya
Pradesh 1.
5. Submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.2:
5.1. Per contra, learned counsel submitted that there are
specific allegations levelled against the petitioners regarding
harassment made against respondent No.2 including
demanding of additional dowry. The Investigating Officer, after
recording the statements of the witnesses, filed the final report,
wherein there is a specific role attributed against the
petitioners. The ingredients for the offences under Sections
498-A, 323 and 506 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the
D.P.Act are attracted against the petitioners. Whether the
allegations levelled against the petitioners in the complaint or in
the charge sheet are true or not, the same have to be
adjudicated and decided by the trial Court after full-fledged trial
only. The grounds which were raised by the petitioners are
disputed questions of fact and the same cannot be adjudicated
in the present criminal petition, as the scope of Section 482 of
the Cr.P.C. is very limited. Hence, the criminal petition filed by
the petitioners is liable to be dismissed.
(2023) 16 SCC 666
5.2. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following
judgment:
1. Muskan v. Ishaan Khan (Sataniya) and others 2,
and
2. Order in Criminal Petition No.12250 of 2024.
6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor reiterated the
submissions made on behalf of respondent No.2.
Analysis
7. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the
respective parties and perused the material available on record.
It is not in dispute that the marriage of respondent No.2 was
solemnized with accused No.1 on 08.09.2019, subsequently,
matrimonial disputes were arose between the parties. Upon
perusal of the complaint and the charge sheet, there are no
specific allegations levelled against the petitioners about
demanding of additional dowry except that they suppressed the
factum of accused No.1 is suffering with psychological illness
and performed marriage with respondent No.2 and they have
never taken any steps to restrain accused No.1 not to harass
respondent No.2 physically and mentally and not to demand
additional dowry. The major allegations are levelled against
accused No.1.
8. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2355
petitioners placed the Xerox copies of the orders passed by the
learned Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar
in F.C.O.P.No.846 of 2020 and 306 of 2022. Upon perusal of
the above said orders, it is revealed that respondent No.2 had
approached the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, at
L.B.Nagar and filed F.C.O.P.No.846 of 2020 against accused
No.1 invoking the provisions of Sections 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of decree of divorce and the said
O.P. was allowed on 19.01.2022 and granted decree of divorce
dissolving the marriage of respondent No.1 with accused No.1
dated 08.09.2019; and accused No.1 also filed F.C.O.P.No.306
of 2022 against respondent No.2 invoking the provisions of
Section 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, read with
Section 7 of the Family Courts Act on the file of the Judge,
Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, and for
dissolution of their marriage and for grant of decree of divorce
on the ground of cruelty and desertion and the same was
allowed on 12.09.2022 and granted decree of divorce dissolving
their marriage. According to the parties, the above said
orders/decree passed by the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy
District at L.B.Nagar, have become final.
9. In Muskan supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside
the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order that had quashed FIR
No. 35 of 2024 registered under Section 498-A IPC and Sections
3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The appellant-wife alleged
that her husband and in-laws harassed her for dowry and
demanded Rs.50 lakhs, forcing her to leave her matrimonial
home. The High Court had quashed the proceedings on the
ground that earlier complaints did not mention two specific
incidents later included in the FIR, terming them an
afterthought. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the High Court
erred by assessing the credibility of allegations at the crime
stage which is impermissible under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Reiterating principles from State of Haryana and others v.
Bhajan Lal and others 3, Neeharika Infrastructure private
Limited v. State of Maharastra and others 4, the Hon'ble Apex
Court further observed that quashing should be exercised
sparingly and only when no prima facie offence is made out.
10. In Criminal Petition No.12250 of 2024, this Court
dismissed the criminal petition filed by accused Nos. 2 and 3,
who are the parents of accused No.1 for offences under Sections
498-A and 506 IPC and Sections 3, 4, and 6 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, as there are triable issues and the truth or
otherwise regarding the allegations levelled against the
petitioners can only be decided by the trial Court after full-
fledged trial. The above said order is not applicable to the
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
(2021) 19 SCC 401
present case on the ground that there are no specific allegations
against the petitioners.
11. The judgment and order relied upon by the learned
counsel for respondent No.2 supra may not applicable to the
facts and circumstances of the present case. In Muskan supra,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court interfered because the FIR
contained specific, detailed, and consistent allegations of
demand of dowry and cruelty by all accused persons, which
disclosed a clear prima facie case. The High Court in that case
had quashed the proceedings by prematurely at the stage of
crime, assessing the truthfulness of the allegations, thereby
conducting a "mini-trial" is not permitted under law. In
contrast, in the present case, the allegations made against the
petitioners, who are the parents of accused No.1 are vague,
general, and devoid of any specific instances or overt acts of
cruelty or demand of dowry. The complaint primarily attributes
the alleged acts of harassment and abuse to accused No.1
alone.
12. In Abhishek supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed
that in matrimonial disputes it is common for a wife to implicate
not only the husband but also his relatives, often through
general and omnibus allegations lacking any specific instances
of cruelty. Referring to Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar 5 and
earlier judgments, the Court reiterated its concern regarding the
misuse of Section 498-A IPC by levelling vague and sweeping
accusations against in-laws without attributing concrete acts of
harassment, cautioning that permitting such prosecutions to
proceed would amount to an abuse of the legal process and
unnecessarily subject innocent family members to the trauma of
a criminal trial. The Hon'ble Supreme court also referred Preeti
Gupta v. State of Jharkhand 6, emphasising the need for courts to
carefully scrutinize complaints under Section 498-A,
particularly where distant or non-resident relatives are
implicated, and to approach such allegations with prudence in
light of the realities of matrimonial discord. It is further
observed that Abhishek supra is squarely applicable to the facts
of the present case, as the allegations made by respondent No. 2
against the petitioners who are merely the parents of accused
No. 1 are broad, unspecific, and devoid of any instances
demonstrating their direct involvement in the alleged acts of
cruelty or dowry demand, the main accusations pertain solely to
accused No. 1, and the petitioners appear to have been
implicated only by virtue of their relationship with him.
13. The record further reveals that the learned Magistrate took
(2022) 6 SCC 599
(2010) 7 SCC 667
cognizance without reflecting his satisfaction and assigning any
reasons. It is trite law that there need not be a detailed order,
but should reflect the Magistrate's satisfaction while taking
cognizance.
14. It is very much relevant to mention that in Kailashben
Mahendrabhai Patel v. State of Maharashtra 7, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that vague, general, and omnibus
allegations without specific particulars as to date, time, or overt
acts attributed to each accused cannot form the basis of
prosecution under Section 498A of I.P.C. The Court observed
that when the complaint does not specify any distinct or
identifiable role of the in-laws and merely makes sweeping
allegations against them, continuation of such criminal
proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. It
was further held that to attract the ingredients of cruelty under
Section 498A, there must be clear and specific instances of
harassment or unlawful demand, and not general assertions
arising merely from the existence of a matrimonial relationship
and further held that criminal proceedings cannot be allowed to
continue on the basis of vague and unsubstantiated allegations
lacking specific material against the in-laws.
2024 SCC OnLine SC 2621
15. In the present case, the allegations of cruelty and demand
of additional dowry are against accused No.1 only, whereas the
petitioners, who are the parents of accused No.1, have been
implicated solely on the ground that they did not restrain their
son from harassing respondent No.2. Such allegations, even if
taken at face value, do not disclose any specific overt act or
participation on the part of the petitioners in the alleged
harassment or demand of dowry. Therefore, principles laid
down in the above said judgment in Kailashben Mahendrabhai
Patel supra, are square applicable to the present case.
16. Furthermore, in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal 8, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the guiding principles for the
exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Court enumerated illustrative categories of cases where
interference by the High Court would be justified, such as when
the allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not
constitute any offence, are absurd or inherently improbable, are
actuated by mala fides, or when the continuation of criminal
proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law.
Applying these principles, the present case clearly falls within
the ambit of the Bhajan Lal supra guidelines, as the allegations
against the petitioners are vague, general, and devoid of any
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
material particulars, and their prosecution would amount to an
abuse of the process of law.
17. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered
opinion that it is a fit case to invoke Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.2
and 3 in C.C.No.4921 of 2020 on the file of the V Additional
Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-V Additional Junior Civil Judge,
Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar.
18. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed. Accordingly,
the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 in
C.C.No.4921 of 2020 on the file of the V Additional Metropolitan
Magistrate-cum-V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad at
L.B.Nagar, are hereby quashed. It is made clear that any of the
observations made in this order are only confined for the
purpose of deciding this case.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand
closed.
_______________________
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
Date:18.11.2025
L.R. copy to be marked
Issue C.C. in a week.
mar
