Telangana High Court
Vallakatla Nirmala vs The State Of Telangana on 23 September, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2762 of 2025
ORDER:
This criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.1931 of 2024 against the petitioners-
accused Nos.2 to 4 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-
cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Rajanna Sircilla, for the
offences under Section 85 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and
Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'DP Act').
2. Heard Mr.Alladi Ravinder, learned Senior Counsel
representing Mr. B.Srikanth, learned counsel for petitioners and
Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that
accused No.1 and LW-1/complainant used to work in the same
office in the USA. He further submitted that false allegations have
been made against the petitioners by the de facto complainant,
and that the petitioners never harassed or ill-treated the de facto
complainant. It is also submitted that accused No.1 and the de
facto complainant were living in the USA, while the in-laws
resided in India. Therefore, the petitioners, who are accused Nos.
2 to 4, never had any occasion to interact with the complainant in
a manner that could constitute harassment or ill-treatment.
Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that
the offence is a continuous one and that there are specific
allegations against the petitioners. It is further submitted that
accused No.1 is absconding. The petitioners were residing in
India and during the complainant's initial stay with them prior to
leaving for USA, they have allegedly harassed her for bringing
additional dowry. When accused No.1 demanded additional
dowry, the de facto complainant informed accused Nos.2 to 4, but
they also demanded her to bring an additional dowry of Rs.10
lakhs and supported accused No.1 in harassing her. He,
therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the
Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kishan Singh v.
Gurpal Singh and others 1, wherein it was held that prompt and
early reporting of the occurrence by the informant, with all its vivid
(2010) 8 SCC 775
details, lends assurance to the truth of the version presented. In
cases where there is a delay in filing the FIR, the complainant
must provide an explanation for the same. The Court, in such
instances, is required to examine whether there is a plausible
explanation for the delay. In the absence of such an explanation,
the delay may prove fatal to the prosecution, and the reason for
quashing the proceedings may not merely be that the allegations
were an afterthought or presented with a coloured version of the
events. In such cases, the Court should carefully examine the
facts before it, as a frustrated litigant who has failed to succeed
before the Civil Court may initiate criminal proceedings merely to
harass the other side, driven by mala fide intentions or with the
ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance.
6. By relying on the said decision, learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioners has contended that the complaint was lodged with
an abnormal delay and, therefore, cannot be entertained. He
further submitted that the incident allegedly took place on
04.12.2023, when the complainant was harassed and driven out
of the house while she was in the USA. Thereafter, she stayed at
her brother's place in the USA, and upon returning to India on
19.08.2024, she has been residing with her family. Thus, the
contention of the petitioners' counsel is that, although the alleged
date of harassment is 04.12.2023, the complaint was lodged only
on 21.08.2024. Hence, in view of such an abnormal delay, the
complaint is not liable to be entertained. The offence under
Section 498-A of the IPC is considered to be a continuous
offence. In the present case, the complaint narrates the details of
harassment for additional dowry. Hence the point of delay in
lodging the complaint cannot be considered as a ground to quash
the proceedings.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 further submitted
that at the time of the alleged incident, the de facto complainant
was residing in the USA and returned to India on 19.08.2024. The
complaint was lodged thereafter, on 21.08.2024. Therefore,
keeping in view of the circumstances of the case, delay cannot be
a point to be considered in this case.
8. Perused the record.
9. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further relied
upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dara
Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana 2, where in it is held
that the FIR should reveal the specific details as to the time, date,
place or manner in which the alleged harassment has occurred.
As the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations, the apex Court
set aside the order of the trial Court and has allowed the quash
petition.
10. In the said case, the respondent No.2/wife used to leave
the matrimonial home uninformed and on one such occasion
when she left the matrimonial house, the husband made a police
complaint and when the police found her whereabouts, she was
allegedly living with someone and that after being counselled, she
returned to her matrimonial home. It was further submitted that
the wife addressed a letter to the Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Thirupathur Sub-Division requesting to close the complaint
made by appellant No.1 wherein she admitted that she had left
her matrimonial house after quarrelling with appellant No.1
because of one Govindan, with whom she was talking over the
phone for the past ten days continuously and that she would not
repeat such acts in future. It was further submitted that
respondent No.2 again left the matrimonial house leaving
(2025) 3 SCC 735
appellant No.1 and children behind. Then the husband having no
other option has issued a legal notice seeking divorce by mutual
consent. Thus, as a counter blast the present FIR was filed by
respondent No.2/wife. Further, in the said case, there were no
specific allegations against the appellants. In that backdrop, the
Apex Court has held that when there are no specific allegations
against the appellants and there is admission made by the
respondent No.2-wife that she had left her matrimonial house
after quarrelling with appellant No.1 because of one Govindan,
with whom she was talking over the phone for the past ten days
continuously and that she would not repeat such acts in future,
the appeal was allowed and the impugned order of the High Court
was set aside and as a result, the proceedings before the trial
Court were quashed.
11. The contention of learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioners is that since the alleged offence occurred at USA,
sanction under Section 188 Cr.P.C. is essential.
12. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 relied upon the
Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thota
Venkateswarlu v. State of Andhra Pradesh through Principal
Secretary and another 3, wherein it was held that even if one
incident has occurred in India, there was no requirement to take
previous sanction from the Central Government under Section
188 Cr.P.C., for trial of all the other incidents outside India. He
submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while analysing the
provisions of Section 188 of Cr.P.C., has held that the Section
gets attracted only when the entirety of offence is committed
outside India and previous sanction would enable such offence
was definitely committed on the soil of this country and as such
going with normal principle, if the offence was not committed in its
entirety outside India, the matter would not come within the scope
of Section 188 of Cr.P.C. and there was no necessity of any
sanction as mandated by the Proviso to Section 188 of Cr.P.C.
13. However, the allegations indicate that the petitioners, who
are residents of India, are accused of harassing the de facto
complainant while she was staying in the USA. The only
allegations against the petitioners are that they supported her
husband and demanded additional dowry. There are no specific
overt acts attributed to the petitioners themselves. In view of the
ratio laid down in Dara Lakshminarayana's case, in the absence
(2011) 9 SCC 527
of specific overt acts against the petitioners, the continuation of
proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
14. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The
proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 in
C.C.No.1931 of 204 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge-
cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Rajanna Sircilla are
hereby quashed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
_____________________________
JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
Date: 23.09.2025
lk
