[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Putli Begum vs The State Of Telangana on 25 March, 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. 11989 OF 2024
DATE: 25.03.2026
Between :
Putli Begum and another.
... Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 and 4.
AND
The State of Telangana, Hyderabad, represented by its
Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad, and another.
... Respondents.
ORDER
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ("BNSS, 2023"), seeking quashment of
the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No. 8943 of 2020, pending
on the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Hyderabad.
2. The petitioners are arrayed as Accused Nos. 2 and 4 in the said
Calendar Case, which arises out of Crime No. 83 of 2019, registered for
the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 ("IPC").
NTR,J
3. During the pendency of this petition, petitioner No.1/Accused No.2
having passed away, the proceedings against her stand abated.
4.1. The prosecution case, in brief, is that respondent No.2, the de facto
complainant, lodged a complaint dated 06.03.2019 stating that his
younger daughter was married to Accused No.1 on 04.02.2018. It is
alleged that, after the marriage, Accused No.1 used to pick quarrels with
the deceased on trivial issues and, despite repeated interventions by the
complainant, the disputes continued. It is further alleged that Accused
No.1 subjected the deceased to harassment on the ground that she had
not conceived, despite medical consultation, and threatened her with
divorce.
4.2. It is further stated that on 05.03.2019, the complainant received
information that his daughter had been killed at her matrimonial home.
Upon reaching the spot, he found her in the washroom with a deep cut
injury on her throat.
4.3. Based on the said complaint, Crime No. 83 of 2019 was registered.
During the course of investigation, on the basis of the alleged
confessional statement of Accused No.1 and the statements of
circumstantial witnesses (L.Ws. 6 to 9), the involvement of Accused Nos.
2 to 4 came to light. The present petitioner/Accused No.4, who is related
to Accused No.2, was implicated on the basis of such statements.
NTR,J
5. I have heard Mr. Khaled Bin Sayed, learned counsel representing
Mr. Mohd. Muzaffer Ullah Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. M.
Vivekananda Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
respondent No.1-State; and Mr. Abdul Quddus Mohd., learned counsel
for respondent No.2/de facto complainant.
6.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner/Accused No.4 has no role whatsoever in the alleged
matrimonial disputes of the deceased. It is contended that neither the
complaint nor the statements of the immediate family members of the
deceased attribute any specific overt act to the petitioner. The only
allegation emerging from the statements of L.Ws. 6 to 9 is that the
petitioner, along with others, allegedly taunted the deceased for not
having children.
6.2. It is further contended that such vague and omnibus allegations,
devoid of specific particulars or instances, do not constitute "cruelty"
within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC. It is a well settled principle that
criminal proceedings, particularly in matrimonial disputes, cannot be
sustained on the basis of general and sweeping allegations against
distant relatives. Accordingly, it is prayed that the proceedings against
the petitioner be quashed.
NTR,J
7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the involvement
of the petitioner came to light during investigation based on the
statements of L.Ws. 6 to 9. However, he fairly concedes that, apart from
the allegation that the petitioner joined others in making remarks
regarding the deceased not having children, no specific overt acts or
instances have been attributed to the petitioner.
8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the
statements of L.Ws. 6 to 9 constitute material against the petitioner and
that the veracity and evidentiary value of such statements are matters to
be tested during trial. It is, therefore, contended that the petition is liable
to be dismissed.
9. I have perused the material available on record.
10. The allegation against the petitioner/Accused No.4 is for the
offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. It is not in dispute that the
implication of the petitioner is based solely on the statements of L.Ws. 6
to 9, who have, in general terms, stated that the petitioner, along with
other accused, used to taunt the deceased by making remarks about her
inability to conceive.
11. At this juncture, it is apposite to examine the scope of "cruelty"
under Section 498-A IPC. The provision contemplates (i) willful conduct
NTR,J
of such a nature as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to
cause grave injury or danger to life, limb, or health; or (ii) harassment with
a view to coercing her or her relatives to meet any unlawful demand.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, has held that criminal proceedings can be
quashed where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not
constitute any offence. Further, in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State
of Bihar (2022) 6 SCC 599, Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. (2012) 10
SCC 741, the Apex Court cautioned against the tendency to implicate
relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes on the basis of vague
and omnibus allegations and consistently held that continuation of
criminal proceedings against relatives, who are not directly involved in
matrimonial discord, on vague and omnibus allegations, amounts to
abuse of process of law, and such proceedings are liable to be quashed
in the absence of specific material.
13. In the present case, a plain reading of the statements of L.Ws. 6 to
9 indicates that the allegations against the petitioner are general in nature
and lack specificity. No particular incident, date, or overt act attributable
to the petitioner has been brought on record. The allegation of taunting,
without anything more, does not prima facie satisfy the ingredients of
"cruelty" as defined under Section 498-A IPC.
NTR,J
14. In the absence of any legally sustainable material demonstrating
willful conduct or harassment of the nature contemplated under Section
498-A IPC, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner
would amount to an abuse of the process of law. This Court, in exercise
of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding to
Section 482 Cr.P.C.), is duty bound to prevent such abuse and secure the
ends of justice.
15. Accordingly, applying the principles laid down in Bhajan Lal and
Kahkashan Kausar (supra), this Court is of the considered view that the
proceedings against the petitioner/Accused No.4 are liable to be
quashed.
16. Resultantly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings
against the petitioner/Accused No.4 in C.C. No. 8943 of 2020 pending on
the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Hyderabad, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if
any, shall stand closed.
_______________
N.TUKARAMJI, J
Date: 25.03.2026
svl
