Telangana High Court
Naresh Kumar Yella vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 2 April, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4751 OF 2019
JUDGMENT:
1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A1 to A5 in C.C.No.2271 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-VIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Kukatpally, for the offences under Sections 498-A, 420, 506 of IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. The petitioners were arrayed as A1 to A5 in the charge sheet filed by the Miyapur Police Station for the offences under Sections 498-A, 420, 506 of IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. The 2nd respondent filed a complaint on 20.04.2019 alleging that her marriage with A1 was performed on 24.02.2019. At the time of marriage, her parents gave a dowry of Rs.20.00 lakhs as per the demand of the accused. Two or three days after the date of marriage, A1 and others started harassing her both physically and mentally by demanding the additional dowry. Further, they also 2 took 95 tulas of gold by beating her. Further, the petitioners were demanding that half of her father's property be transferred in their name. Though A1 claimed that he completed M.Tech from IIIT Hyderabad, however, her enquiry revealed that he had only joined a Post Graduate Programme and had not enrolled in a Ph.D programme at IIIT, Hyderabad. In the bio-data sent prior to the marriage, it was mentioned that A1 had an annual income of Rs.45,60,000/-. However, this was incorrect, and the actual income is unknown. Accordingly, on the basis of the said investigation, a charge sheet was filed for the offences under Sections 498-A, 420, and 506 of IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would submit that:
i) The 2nd respondent admitted that she lived with A1 for only six days and out of the six days, five days were spent performing the post-marital rituals, and on the 6th day, A1 left to take care of his ailing mother/A3.
ii) A2 to A5 did not reside with the 2nd respondent under the same roof since the date of marriage as A1 and the 2nd respondent 3 were traveling. The said fact is evident from the cross-examination of the 2nd respondent in the DVC case.
iii) The 2nd respondent left the company of A1 on 03.03.2019.
iv) Admittedly, the petitioners and the 2nd respondent did not reside together to infer any harassment attracting an offence under Section 498-A or Section 506 of IPC. Further, the case filed by the 2nd respondent under Section 506 of IPC in C.C.No.6650 of 2021 was dismissed on 03.11.2022.
v) Though the 2nd respondent filed a domestic violence case, i.e., DVC No.61 of 2019, the same was dismissed, observing that there was no cruelty against the 2nd respondent.
vi) There is no offence of cheating made out. Multiple cases and proceedings were initiated against the petitioners, including a domestic violence case, a criminal intimidation case, an Email hacking case, and a criminal harassment complaint filed by the father of the 2nd respondent.
vii) None of the allegations regarding the demand for dowry prior to the marriage can be believed, as the 2nd respondent 4 admitted before Telangana State Human Rights Commission (TSHRC) via TSHRC No.1253/2021, in their reply dated 17.05.2021, that A1 and his family members refused any form of dowry or property.
viii) It is clear from the Section 161 Cr.P.C statements that the 2nd respondent resided with A1 for less than six days. As such, it is highly improbable that there was any physical or mental harassment during the 1st week of the marriage.
5. The following are the complaints and cases filed by the 2nd respondent:
Date Case filed Jurisdiction Status
20.04.2019 Dowry Harassment Miyapur Pending trial (present
filed in
C.C.No.2271/2019
case)
20.04.2019 DVC complaint filed KPHB Case was dismissed
in KPHB Court vide
DVC No.61/2019
on 09.01.2023
20.11.2019 Transfer Criminal Delhi Case was dismissed
Petition to transfer
C.C.No.2271/2019
on 07.11.2019
23.12.2020 Criminal Punjagutta Case was dismissed
intimidation filed
vide CC
on 03.11.2022
No.6650/2021
under Section 506
10.02.2020 Email hacking case Tilak Marg, After investigation,
filed
Delhi Delhi Police closed the
case.
5
08.02.2021 Criminal Tilak Mark After investigation,
harassment
complaint filed by
Delhi Delhi police closed the
father of 2nd case
respondent
6. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent did not deny the fact that 1st petitioner and 2nd respondent stayed together for only six days and that there were differences between them, leading to filing of several cases as tabulated above. However, the learned counsel submits that the offence under Section 498-A is a continuing offence, and that A1 and the 2nd respondent staying together only for six days will not, in any manner, impact the cruelty meted out to the 2nd respondent.
7. Since the 2nd respondent admitted to the DVC proceedings, the admissions therein, and also the outcome of the complaints filed against A1 and others, the said documents can be looked into for the purpose of adjudicating the quash petition.
8. It is peculiar conduct on the part of the 2nd respondent to file several complaints when it is admitted that they stayed together for only six days, and that too, petitioners 2 to 5 were not staying with 6 them during this period. It cannot be said that all these petitioners deliberately harassed the 2nd respondent.
9. In Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State of Bihar 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in the absence of specific and distinct allegations against the accused, the proceedings can be quashed. Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the Court should be careful in proceeding against relatives who are implicated solely on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand 2 , held that the Courts must scrutinize the allegations with great care and circumspection, especially against the husband's relatives who reside in different cities and have rarely visited or stayed with the couple.
11. The genuineness of the complaint and the background of the cases filed by the 2nd respondent have to be looked into. It is admitted that A1/1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent stayed together for only six days and that other petitioners 2 to 5 did not stay together with them at any point of time. Admittedly, petitioners 1 (2022) 6 Supreme Court Cases 599 2 (2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 667 7 2 to 5 were staying separately. The marriage rituals took place for nearly five days, leaving only one day as the 6th day. The allegations leveled in the complaint create any amount of doubt about its correctness. It appears that the disputes are on account of some ego issues and the allegations appear to be false in the background of the admissions made by the 2nd respondent. In view of the foregoing discussion, the proceedings against the petitioners cannot be permitted to continue.
12. In the result, the proceedings against the petitioners/ A1 to A5 in C.C.No.2271 of 2019 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge- cum-VIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Kukatpally, are set aside.
13. Accordingly, Criminal Petition is allowed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 02.04.2025 kvs