Telangana High Court
Chitari Prasad vs The State Of Telangana on 17 April, 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.3510 OF 2024
DATE: 17.04.2026
Between :
Chitari Prasad and another.
... Petitioners.
AND
The State of Telangana
Rep by its Public Prosecutor High Court 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, “BNSS”), seeking
quashment of proceedings in C.C. No.1546 of 2021 on the file of the III
Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothagudem, wherein the
petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.4 and 5 for the offences
punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)
and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short,
“D.P. Act“).
2
2. Heard Mr. Venkat Reddy Kodumury, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners, and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State. The
submissions of respondent No.2/defacto complainant have also been
considered.
3.1. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the marriage
between respondent No.2 and accused No.1 was solemnized on
06.06.2010 and a male child was born on 24.06.2013. It is alleged that
after the marriage, accused No.1, along with his family members
including the present petitioners, who are the sister and brother-in-law
of accused No.1, subjected respondent No.2 to continuous mental and
physical cruelty and demanded additional dowry. It is further alleged
that despite intervention by elders through a caste panchayat, the acts
of harassment continued unabated. Based on the complaint lodged by
respondent No.2, Crime No.119 of 2021 was registered and, upon
completion of investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed for the
aforesaid offences.
3.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the
petitioners have been falsely implicated solely on account of their
relationship with accused No.1 and that no specific overt acts have
been attributed to them either in the complaint or in the statements
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is contended that the
3
allegations are general, vague, and omnibus in nature, lacking
particulars as to time, place, or manner of alleged harassment. It is
further argued that in the absence of any prima facie material,
continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the
process of law, warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its
inherent jurisdiction.
4.1. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the
learned counsel for respondent No.2 oppose the petition, contending
that the complaint and the material collected during investigation
disclose the active involvement of the petitioners in the acts of
harassment and dowry demands. It is submitted that the plea of false
implication raises disputed questions of fact which cannot be
adjudicated in a petition for quashment. It is further contended that at
this stage, the Court is only required to examine whether a prima facie
case is made out, and not to evaluate the sufficiency or reliability of
evidence.
4.2. In support of these submissions, learned counsel for respondent
No.2 placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Tilly Gifford v. Michael Floyd Eshwar, (2018) 11 SCC 205; CBI v.
Arvind Khanna, (2019) 10 SCC 686, Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab, (2020) 3
SCC 317; and Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Limited, 2006 (6)
SCC 736; wherein it has been consistently held that disputed questions
4
of fact cannot be examined at the stage of quashment and that
proceedings should not be interdicted when a prima facie case is
disclosed.
5. Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of
the material on record, the point that arises for consideration is whether
the allegations made against the petitioners disclose a prima facie case
warranting continuation of criminal proceedings.
6. A careful examination of the complaint, charge sheet, and
statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. would indicate that the
gravamen of the allegations is primarily directed against accused No.1.
Insofar as the present petitioners are concerned, the material only
indicates that they were present at the time of marriage when dowry
was allegedly given, that they supported accused No.1 when disputes
arose, and that they did not accept the resolutions passed by caste
elders. However, there are no specific allegations detailing any overt
acts attributable to the petitioners constituting cruelty or harassment
within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC.
7. Section 498-A IPC contemplates “cruelty” as willful conduct of
such a nature as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to
cause grave injury, or harassment with a view to coercing her or her
relatives to meet unlawful demands for property or valuable security. In
5
the present case, the material on record does not disclose any such
willful conduct attributable to the petitioners. Mere passive conduct,
such as expressing support to the husband or not acceding to the
decisions of a panchayat, cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be
construed as cruelty within the meaning of the said provision.
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State
of Telangana, 2024 INSC 953, has categorically held that vague and
omnibus allegations against relatives, without specific particulars
indicating their active involvement, cannot form the basis for criminal
prosecution, and that courts must be vigilant to prevent misuse of
criminal law in matrimonial disputes. Similar principles have been
reiterated in Neelu Chopra v. Bharti, (2009) 10 SCC 184, and Kahkashan
Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599, wherein it has
been held that continuation of proceedings against relatives based on
general and sweeping allegations would amount to abuse of the
process of law.
9. Insofar as the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act
are concerned, the essential ingredients require proof of demand,
acceptance, or abetment of dowry. In the present case, even if the
statements of the complainant and witnesses are taken at face value,
they merely indicate that dowry was given in the presence of the
petitioners at the time of marriage. There is no allegation that the
6
petitioners either demanded, accepted, or abetted the giving of dowry.
In the absence of such foundational facts, the prosecution under the
provisions of the D.P. Act cannot be sustained.
10. Thus, upon a holistic consideration of the material on record and
the settled legal principles, this Court is of the considered view that the
allegations against the petitioners are vague, omnibus, and devoid of
the essential ingredients necessary to constitute the offences alleged.
Continuation of proceedings against the petitioners would, therefore,
amount to abuse of the process of law.
11. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed, and the
proceedings in C.C. No.1546 of 2021 on the file of the III Additional
Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothagudem, insofar as they relate to
the present petitioners (Accused Nos.4 and 5), are hereby quashed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall
stand closed.
_______________
Date: 17.04.2026 N.TUKARAMJI, J
MRKR
7
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3510 OF 2024
17.04.2026
MRKR
