[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Gujjeti Nagaraju vs The State Of Telangana on 7 April, 2026
Author: N.Tukaramji
Bench: N.Tukaramji
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.14118 OF 2024
DATE: 07.04.2026
Between :
Gujjeti Nagaraju
... Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana
rep by its Public prosecutor High Court of Telangana Hyderabad
and another.
... Respondents.
O R D E R:
I have heard Mr. M. Amarnath, learned counsel for the
petitioner, and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for
respondent No.1.
2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "BNSS"), seeking
quashment of the proceedings against the petitioner/Accused No.4 in
C.C. No.1958 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of
First Class, Siddipet, for the offences punishable under Section 498A
IPC, Section 504 IPC, Section 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, "the D.P. Act").
3.1. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that respondent
No.2/defacto complainant lodged a report on 06.07.2024 alleging acts
of dowry harassment by the accused persons. It is stated that her
marriage with accused No.1 was solemnized on 29.02.2024 at C.C.
Gardens, Siddipet, in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. At the
time of marriage, it is alleged that gold ornaments, cash, and
household articles worth approximately Rs.2 lakhs were given as
dowry in the presence of elders, pursuant to the demand made by
accused Nos.1 to 4.
3.2. It is further alleged that subsequent to the marriage, accused
No.1 subjected the complainant to physical and mental cruelty,
asserting that he had received alternative matrimonial proposals
offering higher dowry amounts and thereby demanded additional
dowry. Upon failure to meet such unlawful demands, the complainant
was allegedly driven out of the matrimonial home. It is also alleged that
accused No.1 issued threats to the complainant and her brother
through phone calls and messages sent from fictitious identities.
3.3. On the basis of the said complaint, Crime No.338 of 2024 was
registered for the aforesaid offences. Upon completion of investigation,
a charge sheet was filed and the same was taken cognizance of as
C.C. No.1958 of 2024. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition is filed
seeking quashment of proceedings insofar as the petitioner/Accused
No.4 is concerned.
4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegations
made in the complaint, charge sheet, and statements recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. do not disclose any prima facie case against the
petitioner. It is specifically urged that no overt acts have been attributed
to the petitioner and that she has been falsely implicated solely on
account of her relationship with accused No.1.
4.2. It is further submitted that the essential ingredients constituting
offences under Sections 498-A, 504, and 506 IPC, as well as Sections
3 and 4 of the D.P. Act, are not made out against the petitioner.
Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1990 INSC 363, wherein categories
were laid down under which criminal proceedings may be quashed,
including cases where allegations do not disclose the commission of
any offence or are manifestly attended with mala fides. Reliance is also
placed on Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, 2022 INSC 163,
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court cautioned against the tendency to
implicate relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes in the
absence of specific and distinct allegations.
4.3. It is additionally contended that in view of the coming into force
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 with effect from 01.07.2024, continuation of proceedings
under the repealed provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
is legally untenable.
5.1. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the
investigation has revealed the involvement of the petitioner in the
demand of dowry and in supporting accused No.1 in subjecting the
complainant to cruelty. It is contended that the truthfulness of the
allegations can only be adjudicated during trial and that interference at
the threshold stage would prejudice the prosecution case. Accordingly,
dismissal of the petition is sought.
6. I have perused the material available on record.
7. A perusal of the charge sheet reveals that the allegations
against the petitioner/Accused No.4 are limited to the assertion that, at
the time of marriage, dowry in the form of gold (9 tulas), cash of Rs.2
lakhs, and household articles was given on the alleged demand of
accused Nos.1 to 4, and that all accused persons supported accused
No.1 in subjecting the complainant to harassment.
8. However, beyond these general and omnibus allegations, the
charge sheet does not disclose any specific overt act, distinct incident,
or direct role attributable to the petitioner. There is no material
indicating her active participation in the alleged acts of cruelty,
harassment, or intimidation.
9. To attract an offence under Section 498A IPC, there must be
specific allegations of cruelty, either in the form of wilful conduct likely
to drive a woman to commit suicide or harassment in connection with
unlawful dowry demands. Similarly, offences under Section 504 IPC
and Section 506 IPC require clear and specific particulars regarding
the alleged acts. Further, Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act necessitate
proof of demand and acceptance of dowry with identifiable involvement
of the accused.
10. In Kahkashan Kausar (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that vague and omnibus allegations against relatives of the husband,
without specific instances of involvement, are insufficient to sustain
criminal prosecution. Likewise, in Bhajan Lal (supra), it was held that
proceedings can be quashed where allegations, even if taken at face
value, do not constitute an offence.
11. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present
case, this Court finds that the allegations against the petitioner are
vague, omnibus, and devoid of specific particulars. The absence of any
distinct role or overt act attributable to the petitioner renders the
continuation of criminal proceedings an abuse of the process of law.
The contention regarding applicability of BNSS does not materially
affect the present adjudication, as procedural transition provisions
preserve ongoing proceedings; however, the case independently
merits quashment on lack of prima facie material.
12. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings in
C.C. No.1958 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of
First Class, Siddipet, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-
A, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act, insofar as the
petitioner/Accused No.4 is concerned, are hereby quashed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________
N.TUKARAMJI, J
Date: 07.04.2026
MRKR
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.14118 OF 2024
07.04.2026
MRKR
