Chittibotla Bharadwaja Sharma vs The State Of Telangana
2026 Latest Caselaw 9 Tel

Telangana High Court

Chittibotla Bharadwaja Sharma 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.6967 OF 2024

                          DATE: 25.03.2026

Between :

      Chittibotla Bharadwaja Sharma and three others.


                                                            ... Petitioner
                                 AND

      The State of Telangana
      Through PS KPHB Cyberabad rep By the Public Prosecutor
      HighCourt Buildings High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad and
      another.

                                                         ... Respondents.

O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "the BNSS"), seeking

quashment of the proceedings in P.R.C. No.12 of 2024 on the file of

the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XV Additional Metropolitan

Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally.

2. Heard Smt. Y. Ratna Prabha, learned counsel for the

petitioners, and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for

respondent No.1-State.

3.1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that respondent

No.2/defacto complainant came into contact with accused No.1 in

October, 2007 through a mutual acquaintance, and their relationship

subsequently developed with discussions of marriage. It is alleged that

accused No.1, on the promise of marriage, obtained financial

assistance from the complainant and took possession of her gold

ornaments, LIC bonds, land documents, and educational certificates. It

is further alleged that accused No.1 later refused to marry her.

3.2. Additionally, it is alleged that on 22.03.2022, accused No.1

called the complainant to his flat and had sexual intercourse with her

without her consent, and thereafter ceased all communication.

3.3. Based on the said complaint, a crime was registered, and upon

completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed. The present

petitioners, who are family members of accused No.1 (arrayed as

accused Nos.2 to 5), have approached this Court seeking quashment

of the proceedings on the ground that no specific overt acts are

attributed to them.

4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners

are the father, mother, brother, and sister of accused No.1, and have

been falsely implicated without any factual basis. It is contended that

the entire allegations in the complaint pertain exclusively to the

personal relationship between respondent No.2 and accused No.1;

there are no specific allegations or overt acts attributed to the

petitioners in respect of the alleged promise of marriage, financial

transactions, or any other offence; the dispute is essentially between

the complainant and accused No.1, and the petitioners have been

roped in solely on account of their relationship with him; it is further

submitted that the complaint is a counterblast to an earlier complaint

dated 30.12.2022 lodged by accused No.1 before KPHB Police Station,

and has been filed with mala fide intent to harass the petitioners. The

petitioners also point out that there is an unexplained delay of more

than two years in lodging the complaint in respect of the alleged

incidents, which casts serious doubt on the credibility of the allegations.

4.2. It is further contended that the essential ingredients of the

offence under Section 420 IPC, namely dishonest inducement and

delivery of property, are not made out against the petitioners; the

petitioners are living separately and are well settled in their respective

professions (petitioner No.3 being a software engineer and petitioner

No.4 a law student residing at Nandyal); the allegations in the

complaint are vague, omnibus, and devoid of particulars; no details

regarding the alleged gold, documents, or financial transactions have

been furnished, nor is there any material establishing the complainant's

financial capacity or ownership of such assets. It is therefore

contended that continuation of criminal proceedings against the

petitioners would amount to abuse of process of law.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand,

submits that the parents of accused No.1 had assured the complainant

regarding the proposed marriage, and believing such assurances, the

complainant advanced money by availing loans and pledging her gold

ornaments. It is contended that the investigation, including the

statement of the victim, prima facie establishes the involvement of the

petitioners, and therefore, a case is made out for prosecution. It is

further submitted that at this stage, the Court ought not to examine the

truthfulness or reliability of the statements, and that the matter should

be left to trial. Accordingly, dismissal of the petition is sought.

6. This Court has perused the material available on record and

considered the rival submissions.

7. At the outset, it is a well settled principle that criminal

proceedings cannot be permitted to continue against family members

of an accused in the absence of specific and credible allegations

demonstrating their active involvement in the commission of the

offence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,

1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, has held that where the allegations in the

complaint do not prima facie constitute an offence or are manifestly

attended with mala fide intention, the High Court may exercise its

inherent powers to quash the proceedings. Similarly, in Geeta Mehrotra

v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741, it was held that mere casual

reference to family members, without any specific role attributed to

them, is insufficient to proceed against them. Further, in Kahkashan

Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 162, the

Apex Court cautioned against the tendency to implicate family

members in criminal proceedings arising out of personal disputes, in

the absence of specific allegations, and held that continuation of such

proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.

8. In the instant case, a careful examination of the complaint and

the charge sheet reveals that the core allegations pertain to the

relationship between respondent No.2 and accused No.1; there are no

specific or distinct acts attributed to the petitioners in relation to the

alleged inducement, cheating, or any other offence; the allegations

against the petitioners are general and omnibus in nature, based solely

on their relationship with accused No.1; and there is no material

indicating that the petitioners shared any common intention so as to

attract Section 34 IPC.

9. Further, the essential ingredients of the offence under Section

420 IPC, namely, dishonest inducement at the inception and delivery of

property pursuant thereto are not made out against the petitioners. In

the absence of any foundational allegations or material demonstrating

their involvement, continuation of criminal proceedings against the

petitioners would be unjustified and would amount to abuse of process

of Court.

10. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the

considered opinion that no prima facie case is made out against the

petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5.

11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed, and the

proceedings in P.R.C. No.12 of 2024 on the file of the IV Additional

Junior Civil Judge-cum-XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,

Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally, insofar as the

petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5 are concerned, are hereby quashed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

                                                                _______________
Date: 25.03.2026                                                N.TUKARAMJI, J
MRKR