Telangana High Court
Pasula Ranjith 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.12706 OF 2024
DATE: 28.04.2026
Between :
Pasula Ranjith Kumar and three others.
... Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana
rep by 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, “the
BNSS”), seeking quashment of the proceedings in C.C.
No.1334 of 2024 on the file of 1st Additional Judicial Magistrate
of First Class Siricilla, Rajanna Siricilla District.
2. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences
punishable under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Sanhita,
2
2023 (for short, “the BNS”), and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961 (for short ‘the D.P. Act‘).
3. Heard Mr. Palle Sriharinath, learned counsel for the
petitioners, and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1/State.
4.1. Briefly stated, the case of respondent No. 2 is that she
was lawfully married to accused No. 1 on 12.02.2022 in
accordance with Hindu customs and ceremonies. At the time of
marriage, it is alleged that, pursuant to the demands made by
accused Nos. 1 to 3, her parents provided cash of
Rs.28,00,000/- and 22 tulas of gold, along with household
articles. It is further alleged that, after about three months of
marriage, petitioner Nos. 1, 2, and 4 began subjecting her to
mental harassment and demanded additional dowry of
Rs.50,00,000/-.
4.2. Upon being informed, her parents convened a mediation
before community elders at Kamareddy, wherein the petitioners
allegedly assured that they would treat her properly. However,
according to respondent No. 2, the harassment and ill-treatment
continued unabated. Ultimately, on 08.01.2023, the
petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 4 are alleged to have abused her,
3
reiterated the demand for additional dowry, and forcibly expelled
her from the matrimonial home. Based on her complaint, a
criminal case was registered, and upon completion of
investigation, a charge sheet was filed.
5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the
complaint is false and motivated, and that the petitioners have
been implicated without any specific role attributed to them. It is
argued that even if the allegations are taken at face value, they
do not disclose any specific overt acts constituting the alleged
offence. It is further submitted that the respondent No. 2 herself
behaved adamantly, frequently picked quarrels, and insisted on
setting up a separate household.
5.2. It is also contended that panchayats were conducted in
May 2022 and August 2022, where elders advised respondent
No. 2 to lead a harmonious marital life. Despite such efforts, she
allegedly left the matrimonial home. During her pregnancy, it is
claimed that petitioner No. 1 and his family took due care by
providing medical treatment and proper nourishment; however,
she left for her parental home along with her ornaments. After
the birth of a female child on 22.06.2022, she allegedly refused
to return despite requests. Consequently, petitioner No. 1
initiated proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
4
1955 for restitution of conjugal rights, and thereafter filed a
petition for divorce (HMOP No. 94 of 2020). It is contended that
only after receipt of notice in the divorce proceedings did
respondent No. 2 file the present complaint with exaggerated
and false allegations.
5.3. The petitioners further argue that the delay of nearly two
years in lodging the complaint, coupled with the absence of
specific allegations, demonstrates mala fides and suggests that
the criminal proceedings are being used as a coercive measure.
Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 1083, wherein it was held that in the absence of
specific allegations or attributed roles, compelling the accused
to undergo trial would amount to abuse of process of law.
5.4. It is further submitted that the essential ingredients of
Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
(corresponding to Section 498-A IPC) are not made out, as
there is no material indicating conduct of such gravity as to
cause grave injury, danger to life, or coercion for unlawful
demands. The allegations, being omnibus in nature, are
insufficient to sustain prosecution.
5
6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor submits that the complaint and statements of
respondent No. 2 clearly disclose harassment, and that the
truthfulness of such allegations must be examined during trial. It
is argued that quashing at this stage would prejudice the
prosecution.
7. Respondent No. 2, in her counter, reiterates the
allegations of continuous harassment and specific instances of
dowry demands, including the involvement of accused Nos. 3
and 4. It is contended that the existence of mediation
proceedings and filing of charge sheet establish a prima facie
case. It is further argued that the inherent powers under Section
528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(analogous to Section 482 Cr.P.C.) must be exercised sparingly,
and that conducting a “mini-trial” at this stage is impermissible.
8. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel and perused the materials on record.
9. Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita defines
“cruelty” to include (i) wilful conduct likely to drive a woman to
commit suicide or cause grave injury to life or health, and (ii)
harassment with a view to coercing unlawful demands for
property or valuable security. To establish such offences, there
6
must be clear and specific evidence demonstrating the nature,
extent, and continuity of such conduct.
10. In the instant case, apart from general assertions of
“mental and physical harassment,” there is no material detailing
the nature of cruelty or linking specific acts to individual
accused. It is well settled that vague and omnibus allegations
against multiple family members cannot form the basis of
prosecution under Section 498-A IPC or its equivalent
provisions.
11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @
Sonam v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599, and subsequent
judgments such as Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of
Telangana, 2024 INSC 953, has consistently held that general
and sweeping allegations, without specific instances, are
insufficient to proceed against accused persons, particularly
relatives of the husband.
12. Similarly, Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
requires proof of a specific demand for dowry. In the present
case, except for a bald allegation of demand for Rs.50,00,000/-,
there is no material specifying when, how, and by whom such
demand was made.
7
13. Furthermore, the admitted circumstances, namely,
prolonged separation, prior matrimonial disputes, and delay in
lodging the complaint lend support to the contention of the
petitioners regarding possible misuse of criminal proceedings.
14. Applying the principles laid down in State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, particularly that
proceedings may be quashed where allegations do not disclose
a prima facie offence or are manifestly attended with mala fide
intent, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of
the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.
15. Accordingly, in the absence of specific, credible, and
prima facie material establishing cruelty or unlawful dowry
demand, the criminal proceedings against the petitioners cannot
be sustained.
16. Resultantly, the Criminal Petition is allowed, and the
proceedings in C.C. No. 1334 of 2024 on the file of the I
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajanna Siricilla
District, are hereby quashed.
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.12706 OF 2024
28.04.2026
MRKR