Telangana High Court
J Ajaya Kumar , K Ajaya Kumar And 2 Others vs The State Of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp And ... on 8 September, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6338 of 2017
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the
petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.521 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial
First Class Magistrate at Mahabubnagar, registered for the
offences punishable under Section 498-A 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. When this matter came up for consideration on
26.08.2025, there was no representation on behalf of
respondent No.2. However, at the request of learned counsel
for the petitioners, the matter was posted to 01.09.2025. On
01.09.2025 also, there was no representation on behalf of
respondent No.2 and this Court heard the submissions of
learned counsel for the petitioners and posted to 08.09.2025
under the caption 'for orders'. Today also, there is no
representation on behalf of respondent No.2 in the morning
session and afternoon session, either physically or virtually.
It appears that respondent No.2 is not having any interest to
prosecute the proceedings. Hence, this Court is not having
any option except to proceed with the matter on merits.
3. Heard Mr. R. Sushanth Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioners, and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
petitioners have not committed the offence and they were
falsely implicated in Crime No.46 of 2016. The Investigating
Officer without properly conducting investigation filed the
charge sheet and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance
and numbered it as C.C.No.521 of 2016. Even according to
the allegations made in the complaint, respondent No.2-de
facto complainant and petitioner No.1, who is the husband of
respondent No.2, are living separately since 2011. The
petitioners never demanded any additional dowry. However,
respondent No.2 has lodged a complaint on 05.07.2016, i.e.,
after lapse of more than five years. As per Rule 5 of the A.P.
Dowry Prohibition Rules, 1999 (T.S. Dowry Prohibition Rules)
(for short, 'the Rules), respondent No.2 ought to have filed
complaint within a period of one year from the date of offence.
Hence, the initiation of the proceedings for the offences under
Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act is contrary to the Rules.
Even according to the allegations made in the complaint or
the contents of the charge sheet, the offence under Section
498-A of the IPC is not attracted against the petitioners.
4.1. He further submitted that respondent No.2 filed
D.V.C.No.15 of 2015 under the provisions of the Protection of
Woman Domestic Violence Act, 2005, before the Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar, claiming very same
reliefs, which were mentioned in the complaint dated
05.07.2016. The petitioners have approached this Court and
filed W.P.No.31422 of 2015 seeking to quash the proceedings
in D.V.C.No.15 of 2015 and this Court allowed the said writ
petition on 15.04.2024.
4.2. He also submitted that petitioner No.1 filed
F.C.O.P.No.49 of 2014 before the Family Court-cum-VIII
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar,
seeking dissolution of marriage against respondent No.2 and
the Family Court decreed F.C.O.P. on 27.09.2016 by granting
permanent alimony of Rs.16 lakhs to respondent No.2. As per
the said decree, petitioner No.1 paid the entire amount to
respondent No.2. Aggrieved by the said decree passed by the
Family Court dated 27.09.2016, respondent No.2 had
approached this Court and filed F.C.A.No.369 of 2017 and
subsequently, the same was withdrawn by respondent No.2
on 23.01.2020. Hence, the decree passed by the Family Court
has become final.
4.3. He further submitted that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the
parents of accused No.1 and they never harassed or
demanded any additional dowry from respondent No.2.
However, respondent No.2 has implicated them only on the
ground that they are the parents of accused No.1. Even
according to the learned counsel for the petitioners,
respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1 re-married subsequently.
Hence, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioners
is clear abuse of the process of law.
5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that
whether the petitioners have committed the offence or not has
to be adjudicated during the course of full-fledged trial.
Hence, the petitioners are not entitled to seek to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.521 of 2016.
6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the
respective parties and after perusal of the material available
on record, it reveals that the marriage of petitioner No.1 and
respondent No.2 was solemnized on 13.11.2011 and
subsequently, disputes were arose between them. Even
according to the complaint, respondent No.2 and petitioner
No.1 are living separately since 2011. Respondent No.2
lodged the complaint on 05.07.2016 after lapse of more than
five years and Crime No.46 of 2016 was registered for the
offences under Section 498-A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4
of the D.P. Act. The Investigating Officer after conducting
investigation filed a charge sheet before the Judicial First
Class Magistrte at Mahabubnagar and the learned Magistrate
has taken cognizance and numbered it as C.C.No.521 of
2016.
7. The record further reveals that petitioner No.1 filed
F.C.O.P.No.49 of 2014 before the Family Court-cum-VIII
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar,
seeking dissolution of marriage. The learned Judge, after
taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence
on record, decreed the said F.C.O.P., by its judgment and
decree dated 27.09.2015, by dissolving the marriage between
petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 and granted permanent
alimony of Rs.16 lakhs. The specific case of learned counsel
for the petitioners is that petitioner No.1 paid the permanent
alimony to respondent No.2 and she received the same. When
the above said proceedings are pending, respondent No.2 filed
D.V.C.No.15 of 2015 before the Judicial First Class
Magistrate, Mahabubnagar, claiming various reliefs under the
provisions of the Domestic Violence Act. The petitioners have
approached this Court and filed W.P.No.31422 of 2015
seeking to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.15 of 2015 and
this Court allowed the said writ petition on 15.04.2024 and
quashed the proceedings in D.V.C.No.15 of 2015. The record
further reveals that aggrieved by the decree and judgment
passed by the Family Court in F.C.O.P.No.49 of 2014,
respondent No.2 had approached this Court and filed
F.C.A.No.369 of 2017 and respondent No.2 has withdrawn the
said F.C.A. on 23.01.2020 and the decree of dissolution of
marriage passed by the Family Court dated 27.09.2016 has
become final.
8. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the
petitioners submitted that subsequent to the grant of the
decree of divorce, respondent No.2 re-married. Likewise,
petitioner No.1 also re-married. Taking into consideration the
above said facts, this Court is of the considered view that
continuation of proceedings against the petitioners in
C.C.No.521 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate at Mahabubnagar, amounts to a clear abuse of the
process of law.
9. It is pertinent to mention that the law governing the
exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or the
extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is well settled
by the decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1, wherein the
Hon'ble Apex Court illustratively catalogued categories of
cases warranting quashment, such as when the allegations
taken at face value do not constitute an offence, are absurd or
inherently improbable, are actuated by mala fides, or where
continuance of proceedings would amount to abuse of
process, while cautioning that such power must be sparingly
invoked to secure the ends of justice.
10. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered
opinion that it is a fit case to invoke Section 482 Cr.P.C. to
quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1
to 3.
11. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The
proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 in
C.C.No.521 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate, Mahabubnagar, are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand
closed.
_______________________
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
Date: 08.09.2025
Note : Issue C.C. in a week.
mar
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
