Prudhvi Gade vs The State Of Telangana
2026 Latest Caselaw 632 Tel

Telangana High Court

Prudhvi Gade vs The State Of Telangana on 10 April, 2026

Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka

Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF
                    TELANGANA
     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

           CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5630 OF 2025

                        10.04.2026

Between:

Prudhvi Gade & others
                                                 ..... Petitioners
And

The State of Telangana,
Rep. by Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad & another

                                              ..... Respondents

O R D E R:

Petitioners are Accused 1 to 7 in C.C.No. 4287 of

2024 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-I

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Hanamkonda (FIR No.

219 of 2024 on the file of Dharmasagar Police Station) for the

offences under Sections 318(4), 85, 115(2), 292, 351(2), 324(2)

read with 3(5) BNS and Sections 3 and4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act.

2. Petitioner No.1 is husband of Respondent No.2 and

Petitioners 2 to 7 are her in-laws. Petitioners state that

prosecution registered the above case on the grounds of

cheating a married woman and subjecting her to cruelty by

husband or relatives of husband, causing mental and physical

harassment to meet the demand of additional dowry, etcetera.

According to petitioners, the allegations made by the 2nd

respondent are all false and the present complaint is filed only

to take revenge particularly on the ground that Accused No.1

should not look after the welfare of their parents. It is stated,

there is no evidence to support the accusations made in the FIR

insofar as petitioners 2 to 7 who are parents, sisters, brothers-

in-law of Accused No.1 - husband . Inclusion of their names is

solely intended to harass and malign the reputation of

petitioners' family.

2.1. It is stated, the allegations even if they are taken at

their face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not prima

facie constitute any offence or make out a case against

petitioners. Hence, petitioners seek to quash the proceedings in

C.C.No. 4287 of 2024.

3. Heard Sri Kandukuri Pradeep, learned counsel for

petitioners and Dr. Surepalli Prashanth, learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor on behalf of Respondent No.1. Learned

counsel for petitioners had taken out personal notice on

Respondent No.2 by RPAD but the same was returned un-

served with an endorsement 'refused' and a memo was filed to

that effect.

4. It is well-settled that when a prayer for quashing

the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the Court, in exercise of

the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has to consider whether

or not the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a

cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits

whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not

and the Court has to permit the Investigating agency / police to

investigate the allegations in the FIR. The High Courts in

exercise of such power, has to quash the proceedings in

criminal case in rarest of rare cases with extreme caution.

5. Based on the complaint lodged by Respondent No.2,

Dharmasagar police filed the First Information Report and after

investigation, it is stated, they filed the charge sheet numbered

as C.C.No. 4287 of 2024 on the file of the I Additional Judicial

Civil Judge-cum-I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Hanmakonda. The prosecution put forth their case alleging that

Accused 1 to 3 cheated Respondent No.2 at time of marriage

stating that Accused No.1 had a railway job and was undergoing

training in Delhi and Calcutta, however, after two months,

Respondent No.2 came to know that Accused No.1 did not have

any job, thus he cheated him; Accused persons physically and

mentally harassed Respondent No.2 to bring additional dowry,

used to lock her in the house and they kept her under house

arrest for about two months; when parents of Respondent No.2

tried to interfere, Accused abused them. It is stated, after

Respondent No.2 conceived, the behavior of Accused did not

change; during seemantam function at her parents' house,

Accused No.1 punched her in the stomach and broke plastic

chairs, kicked doors and created nuisance.

6. From a perusal of the material, it is to be seen that

the allegations made in the FIR constitute prima facie the

offences alleged against petitioners. However, the truth or

otherwise of the same would be decided during trial in C.C.No.

4287 of 2024. In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to

quash the proceedings, as prayed for, at this stage.

7. The Criminal Petition is therefore, dismissed.

8. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if

any shall stand closed.

------------------------------------- NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 10th April 2026

ksld