Telangana High Court
M. R. Ravi Kumar vs The State Of Telangana on 28 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.8946 OF 2024
DATE: 28.04.2026
Between :
M.R. Ravi Kumar and another.
... Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana
Rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of
Telangana, High Court, 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 the proceedings in C.C. No. 9340 of 2022
on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-IX
Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at
Kukatpally.
2. The petitioners are arrayed as Accused Nos. 2 and 3,
being the parents of Accused No. 1, and are charged with
offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal
2
Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
(for short, “the Act”).
3. Heard Mr. S. Ganesh, learned counsel for the petitioners,
and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1/State and Mr. K.
Pradeep Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for respondent
No.2.
4.1. The petitioners contend that the marriage between
respondent No.2 and accused No.1 was solemnised on
15.04.2013. Owing to subsequent matrimonial discord, the
spouses began living separately, leading to disputes between
them. In this backdrop, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint
making allegations not only against her husband but also
against his family members, including the present petitioners
(accused Nos.2 and 3).
4.2. It is the case of the petitioners that prior to the filing of the
charge sheet the parties had entered into an amicable
settlement and initiated proceedings for mutual divorce in FCOP
No.3226 of 2021 before the Family Court at Chennai. As per the
terms of settlement, accused No.1 agreed to pay a sum of
Rs.20,00,000/- towards full and final settlement, out of which
3
Rs.5,00,000/- was paid. However, despite accepting part of the
settlement amount, respondent No.2 allegedly failed to adhere
to the agreed terms and continued with the criminal
proceedings. The petitioners assert that they were never
involved in any acts of cruelty and have been falsely implicated
due to the matrimonial disputes between the spouses.
5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
allegations in the complaint are vague, omnibus, and devoid of
specific particulars. No distinct overt acts, dates, or instances of
harassment have been attributed to the petitioners. It is further
contended that the spouses have been living separately for a
considerable period, thereby negating any possibility of
continued harassment by the petitioners. The continuation of
criminal proceedings, despite partial settlement, is alleged to
reflect mala fide intent and constitutes an abuse of the process
of law.
5.2. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of
Bihar, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 162, wherein it was held that
relatives of the husband should not be subjected to criminal
prosecution on the basis of general and omnibus allegations
without specific attribution. It is thus argued that even if the
4
allegations are taken at face value, no prima facie case is made
out against the petitioners, warranting quashment of
proceedings.
6.1. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposes
the petition, contending that the complaint discloses serious
allegations including dowry demands and harassment. It is
submitted that substantial dowry, including cash and gold, was
given at the time of marriage. It is further alleged that accused
No.1 was incapable of consummating the marriage, a material
fact deliberately suppressed prior to marriage. After marriage,
respondent No.2 was allegedly subjected to mental harassment
and financial instability, both in India and in Australia.
6.2. The respondent further contends that the petitioners,
along with accused No.1, made repeated demands for
additional dowry, including substantial financial contributions
towards the purchase of property. It is also alleged that
respondent No.2 was subjected to continuous mental and
physical harassment, coercion, and improper conduct by the
family members. Due to persistent cruelty, she was compelled
to lodge a complaint, leading to registration of the crime and
filing of the charge sheet.
5
6.3. It is further argued that although a settlement was
entered into, the accused failed to comply fully with its terms,
having made only part payment. The respondent asserts that
the petitioners have suppressed material facts and approached
the Court with unclean hands. It is contended that the issues
involved are disputed questions of fact, which can only be
adjudicated during trial and not in proceedings under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
7. Upon consideration of the submissions and material on
record, it is evident from the FIR that allegations have been
made regarding dowry demands, including Rs.10,00,000/- and
40 tulas of gold at the time of marriage, as well as subsequent
demands for additional amounts. Allegations also include
mental and physical harassment, improper conduct by the
father-in-law, coercion by the mother-in-law, and pressure
relating to IVF treatment.
8. At the outset, it is well settled that the inherent jurisdiction
of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised
sparingly, with circumspection, and only in cases where
continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process
of law or where no prima facie offence is made out. The guiding
principles have been authoritatively laid down in State of
6
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, which
enumerates categories of cases where quashing is justified.
9. In the instant case, the allegations, taken at face value,
prima facie, insofar as the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 are
concerned, the allegations appear to be general and omnibus in
nature, lacking specific details or distinct overt acts. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of
Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC 735, has reiterated that indiscriminate
implication of relatives in matrimonial disputes must be
discouraged. Similarly, in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand,
(2010) 7 SCC 667, the Court cautioned against misuse of
Section 498-A IPC and emphasized the need for careful scrutiny
of allegations against extended family members.
10. The admitted fact in the present case is that, the spouses
have been living separately for a considerable period, coupled
with the existence of a settlement (albeit partially complied with),
indicate that the dispute is predominantly matrimonial in nature
with civil overtones. The allegations against the petitioners lack
specificity and fall within the category of vague and generalized
accusations, as cautioned against in the aforementioned
judgments.
7
11. Therefore, applying the settled principles of law, this
Court is of the considered view that continuation of criminal
proceedings against the petitioners would amount to abuse of
the process of law. The disputed issues relating to settlement
and its compliance cannot, by themselves, justify continuation of
criminal prosecution against the petitioners in the absence of
specific allegations.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The
proceedings against the petitioners (accused Nos.2 and 3) in
C.C. No. 9340 of 2022 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil
Judge-cum-IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy
District are hereby quashed, to secure the ends of justice and
prevent abuse of process of law.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
_______________
Date: 28.04.2026 N.TUKARAMJI, J
MRKR
8
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8946 OF 2024
28.04.2026
MRKR
[ad_1]
Source link
