Telangana High Court
Meka Veeraju Chowdary vs The State Of Telangana on 27 November, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1612 of 2020
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short,
'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioners, who were arrayed as accused
Nos.1 to 4, seeking to quash the proceedings against them
in C.C. No.160 of 2019 on the file of the XIII Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad.
2. Heard Mr.K.B.Ramanna Dora, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-
State and Mrs.V.Ramani, learned party-in-
person/respondent No.2.
3. Brief facts of the case:
3.1 That on 26.02.2018, respondent No.2, lodged a
complaint wherein she stated that her marriage was
solemnized with petitioner No.1 on 24.08.2008 and she
bore all the marriage and jewellery expenses amounting to
about Rs.5 lakhs. After marriage, petitioner Nos.2 and 3
avoided meeting the couple and later demanded dowry,
and respondent No.2 stated that under threats of divorce
from petitioner No.1, she paid Rs.10 lakhs and faced
continuous physical and mental harassment. She further
stated that she was forced to undergo an abortion in the
year 2009, and during the marriage of petitioner No.4 in
the year 2014, she gave her gold waist belt worth Rs.7
lakhs, which was not returned, and petitioner No.3
assaulted her by holding her throat and demanding her to
give divorce to petitioner No.1. Respondent No.2 later
accompanied petitioner No.1 to Dubai, where the
harassment continued. In February 2018, petitioner No.1
came to Hyderabad, demanded dowry or property, and
then went missing, prompting her to lodge a missing
complaint; after petitioner No.1 was traced, petitioner
Nos.1 to 4 abused and threatened her with life harm at the
police station, if she did not agree to divorce, and petitioner
No.1 later left for Dubai without any intimation. Basing on
the said complaint, FIR No. 96 of 2018 was registered, and
after conducting investigation, the Investigating Officer
filed a final report before the XII Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad and the
said Court taken cognizance of the same and numbered as
C.C. No. 160 of 2019.
4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners:
4.1 Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that during the pendency of this Criminal Petition,
petitioner No.4 namely Meka Satish died. By virtue of the
same, this Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed as
abated against him and the said submission has not
disputed by respondent No.2. In view of the same, this
Criminal Petition is dismissed as abated against petitioner
No.4/accused No.4.
4.2 He further submitted that the petitioners never
harassed respondent No.2 and demanded dowry and
respondent No.2 implicated the petitioners as accused
Nos.1 to 4 only with an intention to harass them on one
pretext or the other. There are no specific allegations
about the demand of additional dowry and harassment.
He further submitted that the marriage of petitioner No.1
and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 24.08.2008 and
the same is a love marriage, which took place without
consent of petitioner Nos.2 and 3. Since their marriage,
they are living separately and left to Dubai in the year 2014
and respondent No.2 never lived along with petitioner
Nos.2 and 3. Respondent No.2 came back to India in the
year 2017 and lodged the complaint on 26.02.2018. The
entire allegations levelled against petitioner No.1 have
taken place at Dubai. However, respondent No.2
implicated petitioner Nos.2 and 3, who are the parents of
petitioner No.1, by making omnibus allegations. Even
according to the allegations made either in the complaint
or in the charge sheet, the ingredients for the offence under
Section 498-A of IPC do not attract.
4.3 He also submitted that the Investigating Officer
filed a final report basing upon the statements of LWs.1
and 2, who are respondent No.2 and her mother, and
LWs.3 and 4, who are also close relatives and friends of
respondent No.2 only, and no independent witnesses were
examined and their evidence cannot be taken into
consideration. Even according to the allegations made in
the complaint and charge sheet, the ingredients for the
offence under Section 498-A of IPC do not attract. Hence,
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
following judgments;
i) Geddam Jhansi v. The State of Telangana
and another 1; and
ii) Kahkashan Kausar Alias Sonam and others
v. State of Bihar and others 2.
5. Submissions of learned respondent No.2/party-in-
person:
5.1 Learned party-in-person submitted that there are
specific allegations levelled against petitioner Nos.1 to 3
about their physical and mental harassment against her
and the ingredients for the offence under Section 498-A of
IPC would attract against them. The Investigating Officer
after recording the statements of the witnesses filed final
report and in the said final report, the role of the each
petitioner is clearly mentioned. She further submitted that
petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have also lived along with them, and
petitioner No.1 harassed her and received the amounts
from her on several times and he transferred the said
amounts to the accounts of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and
there are monetary transactions between petitioner No.1 to
petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and the said money belongs to her
only.
1 2025 INSC 160
2 (2022) 6 SCC 599
5.2 She further submitted that petitioner No.1 has
made serious allegations against her that she is having
extra marital affair and the same was disbelieved in
M.C.No.165 of 2018. Respondent No.2 came to India on
06.09.2017 for renewal of her passport. However,
petitioner No.1 has made false allegation of adultery
against her. She further submitted that petitioner No.1
demanded her to give mutual consent divorce and when
she refused for the same, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have also
demanded and harassed her to give divorce to petitioner
No.1.
5.3 She further submitted that there are specific
allegations levelled against petitioner No.3 that her
brother-in-law/accused No.4 got married in the year 2014
and on his reception day, she gave her gold waist belt
(vaddanam) worth Rs.7 lakhs to her in-laws as her sister-
in-law does not have a gold waist belt. When she
demanded petitioner No.1 to settle the case (about his
threatening of divorce for dowry and properties) in front of
all relatives, petitioner No.3, who is her mother-in-law,
caught hold her throat and shouted in front of relatives
that her son/petitioner No.1 will give divorce and also
petitioner Nos.1 to 3 abused her in filthy language and
threatened her that if she will not consent for divorce.
Thus, there are specific allegations levelled against all the
petitioners and that has to be decided by the trial Court
after full-fledged trial only, and the same cannot be
adjudicated in the present Criminal Petition, as the scope
of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is very limited.
5.4 She also submitted that the petitioners have
approached this Court and filed Criminal Petition No.9690
of 2025 aggrieved by the docket order, dated 01.07.2025,
passed by the trial Court in C.C. No.160 of 2019, however,
the petitioners restricted their prayer for direction to the
Court below to expedite disposal of the matter. Basing on
the request of the petitioners, this Court while disposing
the said Criminal Petition on 31.07.2025 directed the trial
Court to decide the C.C. No.160 of 2019 as early as
possible preferably within a period of nine (9) months from
the date of next adjournment and the pendency of the
present Criminal Petition was not brought to the notice of
this Court in the above said Criminal Petition. Hence, the
petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of the
proceedings.
5.5 In support of her contention, she relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Muskan v. Ishaan
Khan (Sataniya) and others 3.
Analysis:
6. Having considered the rival submissions made by
the respective parties and after perusal of the material
available on record, it reveals that petitioner No.1 marriage
was solemnized with respondent No.2 on 24.08.2008.
Even according to the allegations made in the complaint
and the charge sheet, it reveals that petitioner No.1 is
doing employment at Dubai and respondent No.2 joined
petitioner No.1 at Dubai in the year 2014 and returned to
India in the year 2017. According to respondent No.2, she
came back to India for the purpose of renewal of her
passport.
7. The core contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioners is that the marriage between petitioner No.1
and respondent No.2 is love marriage and at no point of
time, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have lived with them. All the
allegations levelled in the complaint and final report
3 2025 INSC 1287
pertains to the incident which occurred in Dubai only.
Respondent No.2 implicated petitioner Nos.2 and 3 as
accused Nos.2 and 3 only on the ground that they are
parents of petitioner No.1 and made omnibus allegations.
Whereas the specific case of respondent No.2 is that
petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have lived along with her and
petitioner No.1, they also harassed her for additional dowry
and also put a pressure to give divorce to petitioner No.1
and there is a conspiracy between petitioner Nos.1 to 3.
8. After perusal of the complaint and final report, it
reveals that there are allegations against petitioner No.1 as
well as petitioner Nos.2 and 3 about the harassment made
against respondent No.2 and also there are specific
allegations against petitioner No.3, that she abused
respondent No.2 on the date of reception of petitioner No.4
in front of relatives and also caught hold her throat and
shouted on her and demanded her to give divorce to
petitioner No.1, and subsequently, she also abused
respondent No.2. In respect of petitioner No.2 also, there
are allegations against him that he also abused respondent
No.2 and threatened her to give divorce to petitioner No.1.
The allegations made in the final report prima facie attract
the ingredients for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC.
Whether the allegations made in the complaint and in the
charge sheet against petitioners are true or not, has to be
revealed after full-fledged trial, basing upon the evidence
going to be adduced by the prosecution and the same
cannot be adjudicated in this quash petition.
9. In Kahkashan Kausar supra, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court observed that although Section 498-A IPC was
enacted to address genuine instances of cruelty within
marriage, there has been a growing tendency to misuse
this provision by implicating the husband's relatives on the
basis of vague, general, and omnibus allegations without
any specific role being attributed to them. The Court
cautioned that such unfounded allegations, if left
unchecked, amount to an abuse of process, and Courts
must therefore exercise circumspection before proceeding
against in-laws when no prima facie case is disclosed. In
the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that
the FIR contained only broad accusations against the
relatives, with no distinct acts attributed to them, and
hence, the prosecution against them was held to be
unwarranted. Similarly, in Geddam Jhansi supra, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court found that the allegations against the
husband's aunt and cousin were purely general in nature,
unsupported by any specific overt acts, and further
weakened by the fact that they were residing separately
from the matrimonial home. In the absence of concrete
allegations, their implication as co-accused was held to be
untenable.
10. The above said judgments relied upon by the learned
counsel for the petitioners may not come to the aid of the
petitioners on the ground that there are specific, distinct,
and repeated allegations levelled against petitioner No.1
and petitioner Nos.2 and 3, including verbal abuse,
physical assault, threats to compel divorce, and acts said
to have occurred in the presence of relatives. These are not
general allegations made merely because they are parents
of petitioner No.1, rather, they relate to particular incidents
attributed to them. The petitioner Nos.2 and 3's claim that
this is a case of roping in-laws on account of a matrimonial
dispute is, therefore, untenable. Since the allegations
prima facie disclose their individual involvement and
require adjudication during the trial, the principles laid
down in the above said judgments do not apply to the facts
and circumstances of the present case.
11. In Muskan supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has set
aside the High Court's order quashing an FIR under
Section 498-A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act and held
that, at the stage of considering a petition under Section
482 Cr.P.C, the High Court cannot conduct a mini-trial by
examining inconsistencies between earlier complaints and
the FIR, and must only see whether the allegations, taken
at face value, disclose a prima facie case. As the FIR and
prior complaints in that case contained specific allegations
of cruelty and dowry demand, the Court concluded that the
proceedings could not be quashed at the threshold.
12. The principles laid down in Muskan supra, support the
stand of respondent No.2 in the present matter. In the
present case, the complaint and the final report contain
specific, detailed allegations of harassment, threats, and
cruelty attributed to the petitioners, which cannot be
brushed aside at the stage of quashing. In view of these
clear and particular allegations, the present case does not
fall within the limited category of matters where inherent
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be exercised, and the
proceedings cannot be terminated prematurely.
13. It is not in dispute that earlier the petitioners had
approached this Court and filed Criminal Petition No.9690
of 2025 seeking to quash of the Docket Order, dated
01.07.2025, passed by the trial Court in C.C.No.160 of
2019, wherein the petitioners have requested this Court to
issue direction to the trial Court for expeditious disposal of
C.C.No.160 of 2019. Basing on the said request, this
Court disposed of the above Criminal Petition directing the
trial Court to decide the C.C. No.160 of 2019 as early as
possible preferably within a period of nine (9) months from
the date of next adjournment by its order dated
31.07.2025.
14. It is already stated supra, there are specific
allegations levelled against the petitioners in the complaint
as well as final report about the harassment made against
respondent No.2 including verbal abuse, physical assault
and threatening to give divorce and the role of each
petitioner was specifically mentioned in the final report.
15. It is relevant to mention that in Sau. Kamala Shivaji
Pokarnekar v. The State of Maharashtra & Others 4, supra, the
Hon'ble Apex Court held that the inherent powers under
4 (2019) 14 SCC 350
Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised in exceptional
cases sparingly, with caution, only to prevent abuse of
process or to secure the ends of justice; and it cannot be
invoked to weigh evidence or stifle a genuine prosecution,
but may be applied where the allegations in the complaint,
taken at face value, do not disclose the basic ingredients of
any offence. The case on hand is not the rarest of rare
cases to exercise powers of this Court under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.160 of 2019.
16. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find
any ground to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.160 of
2019 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad against the petitioner
Nos.1 to 3/accused Nos.1 to 3.
17. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.
However, taking into consideration the peculiar
circumstances of the case, the presence of petitioner Nos.1
to 3/accused Nos.1 to 3, in C.C.No.160 of 2019 is
dispensed with, unless their presence is specifically
required during the course of trial, subject to the condition
that the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 shall represent through their
counsel on each and every date of hearing. In case of non-
appearance of the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 on the specific date
so fixed by the trial Court for their appearance, the trial
Court is entitled to proceed with the matter, in accordance
with law. It is made clear that any of the observations
made in this order are only confined for the purpose of
deciding this case.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if
any, pending in this petition stand closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
Date: 27.11.2025
Pgp
