Telangana High Court
Ramannagari Sangeetha vs The State Of Telangana on 7 November, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.1937 OF 2021
ORDER:
This criminal petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.441 of 2019 on the file of learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Court at Gajwel ('trial Court' for brevity) for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 506 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for brevity) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act('DP' Act for brevity).
2. Heard Sri N.Krishna Kumar, learned counsel, representing Sri M.Arjun, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri G.Jitender Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.
3. The case of prosecution briefly stated as follows: respondent No.2 submits that she is married to one Rajesh Goud at her parents village on 17.06.2018 and out of wedlock they were blessed with one child. Accused No.1 started harassing the respondent No.2 mentally and physically for want of additional dowry and thereafter, more than two panchayats were held in the presence of caste elders but of no use.
2 JSR, J Crlp_1937_2021 Accused No.1 necked Respondent No.2 out of her matrimonial house on 19.09.2018 and warned her not to come to their house without additional dowry and since, then she has been staying at her parents' house. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.2 filed a complaint and FIR No.14 of 2019 was registered and after investigation the police filed charge sheet before the trial Court and the same was numbered as C.C.No.441 of 2019. Petitioners filed this criminal petition seeking quash of the C.C.No.441 of 2019.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not committed any offence and they never harassed respondent No.2 for additional dowry. However, respondent No.2 implicated the petitioners as accused on the ground that the petitioners are sister and brother in law of accused No.1. Entire allegations are leveled against accused No.1 only. Accused No.1 or respondent No.2 at no point of time lived along with the petitioners. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint or in the charge sheet, the ingredients under Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of DP Act do not attract.
3 JSR, J Crlp_1937_2021
5. Learned counsel vehemently contended that the only allegation leveled against petitioner No.2 that an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- was transferred to his account by the parents of respondent No.2, is for the purpose of purchasing jewelry and other household articles in favour of respondent No.2 only and the petitioner No.2 has handed over the said amount to the parents of respondent No.2. He further submitted that respondent No.2 in her evidence in M.C.No.94 of 2019 admitted that Rs.7,25,000/- was transferred from her mother account to the account of petitioner No.2 and pursuant to the transfer of said amount only they purchased the jewelry at CMR Jewelers. Hence, the offence under Section 498-A and Section 3 and 4 of DP Act, does not attract against petitioner No.2. He further submitted that omnibus allegations are leveled against petitioner No.1 only with an intention to implicate her as accused. Hence, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is clear abuse of process of law.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 submits that there are specific allegations against the petitioners about harassment for additional dowry. The Investigating Officer after recording the statements of the witnesses filed final report 4 JSR, J Crlp_1937_2021 wherein the specific role of the petitioners is mentioned to attract the ingredients under Section 498-A and Section 3 and 4 of DP Act. Whether the amount transferred into the account of petitioner No.2 is towards dowry or for purchasing the jewelry for respondent No.2 is a disputed question of fact. Basing on the deposition of respondent No.2 in M.C.No.94 of 2019, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quash of proceedings and the petitioners are entitled to place all the evidence before the trial Court during the course of trial in C.C.No.441 of 2019. He further submitted that before the trial Court, PW1 chief examination was completed and the matter is coming for marking of the documents. At this juncture, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quash of the proceedings and the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. Having considered the rival submissions made by respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that petitioners are none other than the sister and brother-in-law of accused No.1. The marriage between accused No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 17.06.2018, thereafter disputes started between them. Even according to the allegations made in the 5 JSR, J Crlp_1937_2021 complaint and charge sheet major allegations are leveled against accused Nos.1 and 2 about demanding additional dowry and there are no specific allegations against petitioner No.1, that she committed any criminal breach of trust to attract ingredients for the offence under Section 506 of IPC.
8. In so far as petitioner No.2/accused No.4 is concerned there are specific allegations levelled against him that an amount of Rs.7,25,000/- was transferred into his account by the parents of respondent No.2 towards dowry, whereas the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said amount was transferred into his account by the mother of respondent No.2 for the purpose of purchasing jewelry and other articles for the benefit of respondent No.2 and the said amount was withdrawn and handed over to the parents of the respondent No.2. Whether the said amount was transferred by the parents of respondent No.2 towards dowry or for purchasing jewelry to respondent No2 and whether petitioner No.2 handed over the said amount to the parents of respondent No.2 or not, the same are disputed questions of fact and same have to be adjudicated and to be decided after full fledged trial. Hence this Court 6 JSR, J Crlp_1937_2021 is not inclined to quash the proceedings against the petitioner No.2/accused No.4.
9. It is pertinent to mention that the law governing the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is well settled by the decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court illustratively catalogued categories of cases warranting quashment, such as when the allegations taken at face value do not constitute an offence, are absurd or inherently improbable, are actuated by mala fides, or where continuance of proceedings would amount to abuse of process, while cautioning that such power must be sparingly invoked to secure the ends of justice.
10. It is already stated supra that there are no specific allegations against petitioner No.1 to attract the ingredients for the offence under Section 498(A), 506 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of DP Act. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of proceedings against petitioner No.1/accused No.3 is abuse of process of law and same is liable to be quashed.
1 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 7 JSR, J Crlp_1937_2021
11. Accordingly, criminal petition is allowed in part and proceedings in C.C.No.441 of 2019 is hereby quashed against petitioner No.1/accused No.3 and criminal petition is dismissed against petitioner No.2/accused No.4. However, taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the presence of the petitioner No.2/accused No.4 before the trial Court is dispensed with subject to a condition that he shall represent the matter through his counsel on each and every date of adjournment and he shall appear before the trial Court, whenever his presence is required. In default, the trial Court may proceed with the matter, in accordance with law.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition shall stand closed.
______________________ J. SREENIVAS RAO, J Date: 07.11.2025 Note: Issue C.C. within ten (10) days BO.
PSW