Telangana High Court
Guggilla Santhosh Kumar vs The State Of Telangana And 2 Others on 25 September, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3916 OF 2021
ORDER:
This criminal petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.890 of 2020 on the file of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Kothagudem, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 506, 188 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for brevity), Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, ('ED Act' for brevity) Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 ('DP Act' for brevity) and Section 51(B) of Disaster Management Act, 2005 ('DM' Act).
2. Heard Sri Madas Bharath Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.Vivekanda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
3. This Court on 11.08.2021, while ordering notice granted interim direction dispensing with the personal appearance of the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.890 of 2020 JSR, J Crl.P.No.3916 OF 2021 2 permitting the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out personal notice to respondent No.3. Pursuant to the same, learned counsel filed proof of service vide USR No.86095 of 2021 on 27.12.2021. According to memo, notice was served to respondent No.3. In spite of service of notice, respondent No.3 has not chosen to enter appearance. However on 01.08.2025, this Court directed the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor to serve notice through concerned SHO to respondent No.3 and the matter was posted to 18.08.2025.
4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the concerned SHO served notice to respondent No.3 and placed the copy of notice dated 28.08.2025. In spite of receiving notice from SHO, respondent No.3 has not chosen to enter appearance. Hence, this Court is not having any option except to proceed with the matter on merits.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not committed any offence much less the alleged offence. Even according to the allegations made either in the complaint or in the charge sheet ingredients of Section JSR, J Crl.P.No.3916 OF 2021 3 498-A, 506, 188 of IPC, Section 3 of the ED Act, Section 3 and 4 of DP Act and Section 51(B) of DM Act does not attract against the petitioners. Petitioner No.1/accused No.1 marriage was performed with respondent No.3 on 22.08.2018 and the said marriage was registered on 04.10.2018. Respondent No.3 left the matrimonial house of the accused No.1 and she filed H.M.O.P.No.141 of 2019 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem seeking dissolution of marriage and the said O.P. was dismissed for default on 03.01.2023 and the said order has become final.
6. He further submitted that petitioner No.1/accused No.1 lodged complaint against father and brother of respondent No.3 on 01.08.2023 before Station House Officer, Paloncha Town and basing on the same, Crime No.258 of 2023 was registered for the offences under Section 420, 494, 506 read with 109 of IPC and 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, respondent No.3 lodged the present complaint on 06.04.2020, against the accused No.1 and accused Nos.2 and 3/petitioner Nos.2 and 3 who are mother and elder brother of accused No.1 for the alleged offences as a counter blast, though the petitioners JSR, J Crl.P.No.3916 OF 2021 4 have not committed any offence. He further submitted that respondent No.3 made allegations in the present complaint that the accused No.1 forcibly married her on 22.08.2018 whereas in the divorce O.P she made other allegations which are both different and distinct. He further submitted that respondent No.3 has already got married to one Ammaraju Bhanu Uday Kumar and was blessed with a child in 2022. In support of his contention, accused No.1 filed sworn affidavit along with I.A.No.1 of 2024 by enclosing a copy of the letter issued by the Public Information Officer, Paloncha Municipality vide proceedings Roc.No.B&D/RTI/1929 /2022/76, dated 18.10.2022. He further submitted that accused No.1 had made specific allegations against respondent No.3 that she is having relation with Ammaraju Bhanu Uday Kumar and basing on the said allegation a Crime No.258 of 2023 was registered against respondent No.3 as well as Ammaraju Bhanu Uday Kumar. He further submitted that petitioners had not demanded any additional dowry and the ingredients under Section 498 A of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of JSR, J Crl.P.No.3916 OF 2021 5 DP Act, does not attract and continuation of the proceedings against petitioners is clear abuse of process of law.
7. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that respondent No.3 has made allegations against the petitioners that they demanded additional dowry. Whether the petitioners demanded the additional dowry and committed other offences have to be decided after full fledged trial and the petitioners are not entitled to seek quash of proceedings.
8. Having considered the rival submissions made by respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the accused No.1 marriage was performed with respondent No.3 on 22.08.2018 and their marriage was registered on 04.10.2018. The record further reveals that accused No.1 filed complaint against respondent No.3 and others on 01.08.2023 on the file of Paloncha Town basing on the said complaint, Crime No.258 of 2023 was registered for the offences under Section 420, 494, 504, 506 read with 109 of IPC, 156(3) of Cr.P.C. In the said complaint the accused No.1 specifically alleged that respondent No.3 is JSR, J Crl.P.No.3916 OF 2021 6 having relation with Ammaraju Bhanu Uday Kumar who was made as accused No.5. Subsequent to lodging of the said complaint respondent No.3 filed the present complaint on 06.04.2020 against the petitioner No.1 who is accused No.1 and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 who are mother and elder brother of accused No.1.
9. The record further reveals that respondent No.3 has filed H.M.O.P. No.141 of 2019 before Principal Senior Judge, at Kothagudem, seeking divorce and the said O.P was dismissed for default. Subsequent to the filing of the said HMOP, respondent No.3 has filed the present complaint on 06.04.2020. The Investigating Officer without taking into consideration the above said aspects filed final report on 28.08.2020 for the offences under Sections 498-A, 506, 188 of IPC, Section 3 and 4 of DP Act, Section 3 of ED Act, Section 51(b) of DM Act before learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Kothagudem and the said Court has taken cognizance and the numbered the same as C.C.No.890 of 2020. It is relevant to mention that the allegations made in JSR, J Crl.P.No.3916 OF 2021 7 the HMOP and the present complaint are different and distinct.
10. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, while exercising the powers conferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings against the petitioner Nos.1 to 3/accused Nos.1 to 3.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition shall stand closed.
______________________ J. SREENIVAS RAO, J Date: 25.09.2025 Note: Furnish C.C. in ten (10) days BO.
PSW