Telangana High Court
Kondakuiyal Sundari Bhai And 4 Others vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 21 July, 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 10211 OF 2022
DATE: 21.07.2026
Between :
Mr. Kondakuiyal Sundari Bhai and four others.
... Petitioners/Accused Nos.5 to 9.
AND
The State of Telangana, through its Public Prosecutor,
High Court Buildings, High Court Hyderabad and another.
... Respondent/complainant
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “CrPC“), seeking to quash the
proceedings against the petitioner/accused Nos.5 to 9 in C.C. No.1475
of 2022 on the file of XIX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,
Cyberabad, arising out of Crime No.447 of 2022 of Kusaiguda police
station registered for the offences under Sections 506 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC“).
2
2. Heard Mr. G. Bhaskar Reddy, learned Counsel for the
petitioners; and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for
respondent No.1-State.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the de facto complainant
lodged a report stating that her marriage with accused No.1 was
solemnized on 29.07.2020. Accused Nos.2 to 4 are the mother, brother,
and sister of accused No.1. Owing to matrimonial disputes between
accused No.1 and the complainant (respondent No.2), the involvement
of the present petitioners was also alleged. It is stated that on
04.06.2021, during a mediation held before the elders, accused Nos.1
to 3 arrived in an intoxicated condition and verbally abused the
complainant and her family members. It is further alleged that petitioner
No.4 (accused No.8), along with accused No.1, attempted to assault
the complainant’s junior paternal uncle. It is also alleged that, on
another occasion, when accused No.1 was in the company of accused
Nos.6, 7, and 8, the de facto complainant requested them to send
accused No.1 back to the police station. At that time, petitioner No.3
(accused No.7) allegedly stated that he was extending moral and
financial support to accused No.1, that he would not permit him to
return to Hyderabad, and challenged the complainant to take whatever
action she wished. Thereafter, when the complainant and accused
No.1 were directed to undergo family counselling, accused No.1
3
refused to participate and told the complainant to do whatever she
could. Alleging that the petitioners had threatened her, the complainant
lodged the report, pursuant to which the crime was registered. Upon
completion of the investigation, the police filed a charge sheet, and the
learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence punishable under
Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners/accused
Nos.5 to 9.
4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners
have been falsely implicated by way of vague, omnibus, and
generalized allegations. He contends that, even if the allegations in the
complaint are accepted in their entirety, they do not disclose any
specific overt act attributable to any of the petitioners/accused Nos.5 to
9 constituting an offence under Section 506 of the IPC. He further
submits that the proceedings have been initiated solely as a pressure
tactic arising out of the matrimonial disputes between the complainant
and accused No.1, with an ulterior motive. It is also contended that the
petitioners are neither members of the matrimonial household of
accused No.1 nor has any specific role been attributed to them in
relation to the matrimonial dispute. According to the learned counsel,
the petitioners have been implicated merely on account of their
association with accused No.1.
4
4.2. It is further argued that the Investigating Officer, without properly
considering the available material or collecting any credible evidence
connecting the petitioners with the alleged offence, mechanically filed
the charge sheet, and that the learned Magistrate took cognizance
without due application of mind. Learned counsel also submits that the
complaint, the statements of the witnesses, and the allegations against
the petitioners are inconsistent and fail to disclose any specific act
constituting the offence of criminal intimidation attributable to them. It
is, therefore, contended that, in the absence of any prima facie
material, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the
petitioners amounts to an abuse of the process of law and would cause
serious prejudice to their interests. Accordingly, he prays for quashing
of the proceedings.
5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, on the other hand,
opposed the petition and submitted that the allegations against the
petitioners are specific and are duly reflected in the statements of the
witnesses recorded during the investigation. It is contended that the
veracity of those statements requires a thorough examination, which
can only be undertaken during a full-fledged trial. According to the
learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, any finding at this stage would
prejudice the case of the de facto complainant and the prosecution. He
further referred to the averments contained in the complaint and the
5
statements of the witnesses and submitted that the material collected
during the investigation prima facie discloses the ingredients of the
offence of criminal intimidation. It is also contended that, while
exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the Court ought not to undertake an enquiry into the
truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations or the evidentiary value of
the material collected during the investigation. Accordingly, he prayed
for dismissal of the petition.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions and perused the
material available on record.
7.1. A careful perusal of the complaint, the charge sheet, and the
statements recorded during the course of investigation reveals that the
marriage between the de facto complainant and accused No.1 was
solemnized after presentation of 25 tulas of gold, 1 kilogram of silver,
and household articles valued at approximately Rs.35 lakhs. It is
alleged that, after the marriage, accused Nos.1 to 4, namely, the
husband, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, and sister-in-law of the
complainant, demanded additional dowry of Rs.12 lakhs. It is further
alleged that they neglected the complainant by refusing to
communicate with her and compelled her to continue residing at her
parental home. According to the complainant, such persistent
harassment drove her to attempt suicide. In this backdrop, the elders
6
intervened and mediation proceedings were conducted at Nagole with
a view to amicably resolve the matrimonial disputes. It is only during
the course of these mediation proceedings that the role of the present
petitioners has been referred to. The allegation against petitioner
No.4/accused No.8 is that, during one such mediation meeting, he
attempted to assault the complainant’s younger paternal uncle.
However, despite the mediation efforts, no amicable settlement could
be reached, and it is alleged that accused Nos.1 and 2 continued their
conduct thereafter.
7.2. It is further alleged that, on another occasion, when the
complainant approached the police station and accused No.1 was in
the company of petitioner Nos.2 to 4/accused Nos.6 to 8, the
complainant contacted petitioner No.3/accused No.7 over the phone
requesting that accused No.1 be sent back to Hyderabad. In response,
petitioner No.3 is alleged to have stated that he was extending moral
and financial support to accused No.1, that he would not permit him to
return to Hyderabad, and challenged the complainant to take whatever
action she deemed appropriate.
8. The Investigating Officer, while filing the charge sheet against
accused Nos.5 to 10, substantially reiterated these allegations and
concluded that the petitioners had threatened the complainant with dire
consequences. However, a careful examination of the statements
7
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. does not materially improve the
prosecution case. L.W.1, the complainant, substantially reiterated the
allegations contained in the complaint with a slight embellishment by
stating that accused No.8 had actually assaulted her junior paternal
uncle during the mediation proceedings, whereas the complaint merely
alleged an attempt to assault him. She further stated that petitioner
Nos.2 to 4 were attempting to separate her from her husband, accused
No.1. L.W.3, the mother of the complainant, has also made
substantially similar statements.
9. Thus, the material placed on record demonstrates certain
inconsistencies and improvements in the prosecution version. Whereas
the original complaint alleged only an attempt by petitioner
No.4/accused No.8 to assault the complainant’s younger paternal
uncle, the subsequent statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
develops the allegation into one of an actual assault. Similarly, the
allegations against petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are confined to the assertions
that they extended moral and financial support to accused No.1,
declared such support over a telephone conversation, and attempted to
separate the complainant from her husband. Significantly, there are no
specific allegations whatsoever against petitioner Nos.5 and 9, nor has
any distinct overt act been attributed to them either in the complaint or
in the statements recorded during the investigation.
8
10. The petitioners are sought to be prosecuted solely for the
offence punishable under Section 506 IPC. It is, therefore, necessary to
examine whether the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety,
satisfy the essential ingredients of criminal intimidation as defined
under Section 503 IPC.
11. Section 503 IPC contemplates that whoever threatens another
with any injury to his person, reputation, or property, or to the person or
reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested, with the
intention of causing alarm to that person, or of compelling such person
to do an act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit an act which
he is legally entitled to do, commits the offence of criminal intimidation.
Thus, the essential ingredients of the offence are: (i) a threat of injury;
(ii) an intention to cause alarm to the victim; and (iii) the object of
compelling the victim to act against his or her legal rights or to refrain
from exercising such rights. Mere abusive language, expressions of
support, casual assertions, or vague allegations, without the requisite
intention to cause alarm or compel a particular course of conduct,
would not constitute criminal intimidation within the meaning of Section
503 IPC.
12. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the offence of
criminal intimidation is not made out merely because harsh or
objectionable words are uttered. The prosecution must establish a real
9
threat intended to cause alarm in the mind of the complainant. In Manik
Taneja v. State of Karnataka, (2015) 7 SCC 423, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court observed that the intention to cause alarm is an indispensable
ingredient of the offence under Section 503 IPC and that, in the
absence of such intention, the offence under Section 506 IPC cannot
be sustained. Similarly, in Vikram Johar v. State of Uttar Pradesh,
(2019) 14 SCC 207, the Supreme Court reiterated that mere
expression of words, absent any intention to cause alarm or compel the
complainant to act in a particular manner, would not attract the offence
of criminal intimidation.
13. Tested on the touchstone of the above statutory requirements
and settled legal principles, the allegations against the present
petitioners fall short of constituting the offence punishable under
Sections 503 and 506 IPC. The allegations merely disclose that certain
petitioners expressed moral and financial support to accused No.1 and
that petitioner No.4 allegedly attempted, or according to the improved
version, assaulted the complainant’s younger paternal uncle during the
mediation proceedings. Even if these allegations are accepted in their
entirety, they do not disclose any specific threat directed against the
complainant with the intention of causing alarm or compelling her either
to do an act which she was not legally bound to do or to omit an act
which she was legally entitled to do. Consequently, none of the
10
essential ingredients constituting the offence of criminal intimidation are
prima facie satisfied.
14. It is a settled principle of law that the inherent jurisdiction of the
High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is intended to prevent abuse of
the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice. In State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court illustratively enumerated the categories of cases in which
criminal proceedings may be quashed. One such category is where the
allegations made in the First Information Report or the charge sheet,
even if accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any
offence against the accused.
15. The aforesaid principle has been consistently reaffirmed in R.P.
Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866; Neeharika Infrastructure
Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401; and Amit Kapoor
v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, wherein it has been held that
although the High Court ordinarily does not undertake an appreciation
of evidence while exercising its inherent jurisdiction, it is nevertheless
duty-bound to examine whether the uncontroverted allegations disclose
the commission of any cognizable offence. Where the basic ingredients
of the alleged offence are conspicuously absent, permitting the criminal
prosecution to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of
law.
11
16. In the present case, even if the entire prosecution material is
accepted as true, the allegations do not satisfy the statutory ingredients
of criminal intimidation under Sections 503 and 506 IPC. The
prosecution has failed to attribute any specific overt act constituting
criminal intimidation to the petitioners, and the material collected during
the investigation is insufficient to disclose a prima facie case against
them. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would
amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. The petitioners have,
therefore, made out a fit case for exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of
this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and the proceedings against
them are liable to be quashed.
17. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Consequently the
proceedings against the petitioners/Accused Nos.5 to 9 in C.C.
No.1475 of 2022 pending on the file of the XIX Additional Metropolitan
Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri, are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________
Date: 21.07.2026 N.TUKARAMJI, J
MRKR
12
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10211 OF 2022
DATE: 21.07.2026
MRKR
13
