Telangana High Court
Gali Naveen Kumar vs The State Of Telangana on 15 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7731 of 2023
DATE OF ORDER:15.04.2026
Between:
Gali Naveen Kumar & another
...Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2
AND
The State of Telangana
rep. by its Public Prosecutor & another
...Respondents
ORDER
1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of The Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C) seeking to quash the
proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 in
C.C.No.3273 of 2019, on the file of the learned IV Additional Junior
Civil Judge -cum- Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally,
Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections
2. Heard Sri Naumene KS, learned counsel for the
petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 as well as Sri K.L.B.Kumar, learned
counsel for the respondent No.2.
2
ETD,J
Crl.P.No.7731 of 2023
3. Learned petitioners’ counsel has submitted that the
de facto complainant had earlier filed another complaint on
30.04.2012 vide Crime No.108 of 2012, on the file of II Town Police
Station, Nellore, for the offences under Section 342 and 498A of IPC
and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, wherein, the Trial Court
had convicted the accused therein but the Appellate Court has held
that there is no cruelty alleged against the appellant and has
acquitted the appellant therein, who is the husband of the de facto
complainant, vide Judgment dated 24.01.2020 passed in
Crl.A.No.428 of 2016. He further submitted that subsequently, the
present complaint vide Crime No.566 of 2018 has been lodged at
KPHB Police Station, Hyderabad, with the very same set of
allegations and that the petitioner never harassed the de facto
complainant at any point of time. He further submitted that not only
the husband of the de facto complainant, but her father-in-law is also
alleged and is arrayed as accused No.2 for no fault committed by
him. He further submitted that a bare perusal of the allegations in
the complaint do not disclose any ingredients to attract the offence
under Section 498A of IPC and that the petitioners would be
subjected to second round of litigation due to the present complaint
lodged by the de facto complainant. Hence, continuation of
proceedings against the petitioners would be an abuse of process of
3
ETD,J
Crl.P.No.7731 of 2023
law. He therefore prayed to quash the proceedings against the
petitioners.
4. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that
during pendency of the three cases i.e., DVC.No.4 of 2016,
M.C.No.15 of 2015 and also Crl.A.No.428 of 2016, the husband of
the de facto complainant approached her and promised to take care
of her and has also induced the de facto complainant that they would
have a peaceful life in future. Believing his words, the defacto
complainant has withdrawn the DVC and MC and the Appeal under
Section 498A has been ended in acquittal. On joining the society of
the petitioner herein, he started harassing the de facto complainant
and that the family members also have harassed the de facto
complainant physically and mentally and she was thrown out of the
matrimonial home by the petitioner No.1 and thus, she started living
with her parents which led to filing of this present complaint. He
further submitted that the allegations prima facie point out the
offences against the petitioners and therefore prayed to dismiss the
petition.
5. Perused the record. The contents of the complaint and the
recitals of charge sheet point out the allegations that accused Nos.1
to 3 played fraud on the de facto complainant to withdraw the earlier
4
ETD,J
Crl.P.No.7731 of 2023
cases filed by her and that after joining the society of accused No.1,
the husband of the de facto complainant started harassing her.
Though de facto complainant has joined the company of accused
No.1 with utmost trust, he has repeated his harassment against her.
It is alleged that accused No.1 has beaten the de facto complainant
and her daughter cruelly and it is further alleged that he is intending
to marry another lady. Thus, there are specific allegations against
accused No.1 with regard to the alleged harassment and beating the
de facto complainant. There is no such allegation against petitioner
No.2, who is the father in law of the de facto complainant except the
one line averment in the complaint and in the charge sheet which
points out that accused Nos.1 to 3 again started harassing the de
facto complainant and that they cheated her. There are omnibus
allegations against the family members of the husband of the
de facto complainant.
6. In Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana and
another 1, it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that if there are
omnibus allegations against the petitioners and no specific incidents
of harassment are made out, the proceedings should be nipped in
the bud. The said principle is extracted herein:-
1
(2025) 3 SCC 735
5
ETD,J
Crl.P.No.7731 of 2023
25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a
criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific
allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in
the bud. It is a well-recognized fact, borne out of judicial
experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the
members of the husband’s family when domestic disputes arise
out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping
accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularized
allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts
must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal
provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary
harassment of innocent family members.”
7. In view of the ratio laid down in Dara Lakshminarayana’s
case (cited supra), in the absence of specific overt acts against the
petitioners, continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of
the process of law.
8. Since there are omnibus allegations against petitioner No.2/
accused No.2, the proceedings against him are liable to be quashed
in light of the aforesaid principle.
9. Accordingly, the proceedings against petitioner No.2/accused
No.2 are hereby quashed. As far as petitioner No.1 is concerned,
there are specific allegations against him that he used to beat the
defacto complainant and also necked her out of family life after
promising her and making her to withdraw the earlier complaints and
on her rejoining the society of accused No.1. Thus, the truth or
otherwise in the allegations need to be tested during the course of
trial. However, this Court deems it appropriate to dispense with the
6
ETD,J
Crl.P.No.7731 of 2023
appearance of petitioner No.1/accused No.1 before the Trial Court
provided that the petitioner No.1/accused No.1 is represented
through an Advocate on every date of hearing and that he shall be
present before the Trial Court whenever his presence is specifically
required during the course of trial.
10. With the above observations, the Criminal Petition is disposed
of accordingly.
11. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
Date:15.04.2026
ysk
7
ETD,J
Crl.P.No.7731 of 2023
THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7731 of 2023
DATE OF ORDER:15.04.2026
ysk