Telangana High Court
Nuthala Sai Rahul vs The State Of Telangana on 23 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.3679 OF 2023
DATE: 23.07.2026
Between :
Mr. Nuthala Sai Rahul.
... Petitioner/Accused No.1.
AND
The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad through P.S.
Saroornagar, WPS and another
... Respondents.
ORDER:
This petition is filed under Section 528 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short, “CrPC“), seeking quashment of the
proceedings in C.C. No. 2188 of 2022 on the file of the I Additional
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, 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, “DP Act“). The petitioner is arrayed as Accused No. 1 in the
said calendar case.
2
2. Heard Ms. Monica P. Pole, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, and Mr. Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, representing the respondent-State.
3.1. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the de facto complainant
and Accused No. 1 developed a love relationship during their B.Tech.
studies and solemnized their marriage on 03.10.2015 at Arya
Prathinidhi Sabha, Hyderabad, without the knowledge of her parents. It
is alleged that, prior to the marriage, Accused No. 1 induced the
complainant to obtain an amount of Rs.20 Lakhs, from her parents
under the guise of pursuing higher studies and to pay the said amount
as dowry to Accused Nos. 2 and 3.
3.2. It is further alleged that, after the marriage, the couple resided at
Karkhana, Hyderabad, where Accused No. 1 subjected the
complainant to physical and mental cruelty and persistently demanded
money. Subsequently, the complainant proceeded to Canada for
pursuing higher studies and employment. During her stay in Canada,
Accused No. 1 is alleged to have continued demanding money and
threatened to contract a second marriage if his demands were not met.
It is also alleged that the complainant transferred an amount equivalent
to Rs.10,000/- in Canadian Dollars to Accused No. 1 and that, during
his stay in Canada, he continued to subject her to physical and mental
harassment.
3
3.3. The complainant further alleged that Accused No. 1 dishonestly
transferred money from her bank account, in respect of which she
lodged a complaint before the Alwal Police Station after her return to
India on 12.03.2022. Thereafter, she visited the residence of Accused
No. 1 at Alwal but found the house locked. Subsequently, on
21.03.2022, she visited the residence of Accused Nos. 2 and 3 at
Babucamp, Kothagudem, where they allegedly abused her in filthy
language, demanded additional dowry of Rs.50 Lakhs, threatened her
with dire consequences, and drove her out of the house. On the basis
of the complaint and the statements of the witnesses recorded during
the course of investigation, the police filed a charge sheet, which was
taken on file as the present Calendar Case.
4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned
criminal proceedings constitute a clear abuse of the process of law and
are, therefore, liable to be quashed. It is contended that the petitioner
and the second respondent became acquainted during the course of
their educational pursuits. Although the present complaint proceeds on
the premise that the parties solemnized their marriage on 03.10.2015
and that the petitioner and his parents demanded dowry of Rs.20
Lakhs, prior to the marriage and subsequently demanded an additional
sum of Rs.50 Lakhs, while subjecting the second respondent to
physical and mental cruelty, the second respondent had, in an earlier
4
complaint registered as Crime No. 374 of 2021 before the Alwal Police
Station, categorically asserted that no marriage had ever taken place
and that the petitioner had fabricated a false marriage certificate by
manipulating photographs.
4.2. It is submitted that the said crime was ultimately closed by the
police as a false case, and only thereafter was the present complaint
lodged by taking a completely inconsistent stand that a valid marriage
had in fact been solemnized and that the petitioner and his family
members had subjected her to dowry harassment. According to the
petitioner, these mutually destructive versions strike at the very root of
the prosecution case and clearly establish that the present proceedings
have been initiated with a mala fide intention to harass the petitioner
after the failure of the earlier criminal proceedings.
4.3. It is further contended that the allegations contained in the
complaint are vague, omnibus, and bereft of material particulars. No
specific dates, instances of cruelty, or particulars of the alleged
unlawful demands for dowry have been disclosed so as to satisfy the
essential ingredients of the offences alleged. The petitioner further
points out that the alleged acts of cruelty are stated to have
commenced in the year 2015, whereas the present complaint came to
be lodged only in March, 2022, without any satisfactory explanation for
the inordinate delay.
5
4.4. It is also contended that the Investigating Officer failed to take
into consideration Crime No. 374 of 2021 and the closure report
submitted therein, which constituted vital material having a direct
bearing on the credibility of the allegations made in the present
complaint. According to the petitioner, even if the allegations contained
in the complaint and the charge sheet are accepted in their entirety,
they do not disclose the commission of the offences alleged against the
petitioner. Therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceedings
would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.
4.5. In support of the above submissions, learned counsel placed
reliance upon State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335;
Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam, (2009) 13 SCC 330; Preeti Gupta
v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667; and Rajesh Sharma v. State
of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 10 SCC 472, to contend that where criminal
proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides, are founded on
vague and omnibus allegations, or fail to disclose the essential
ingredients of the offences alleged, this Court is justified in exercising
its inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings. Accordingly, it is
prayed that the proceedings in the present Calendar Case be quashed
insofar as the petitioner is concerned.
6
5.1. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent-State, duly supported by the learned counsel appearing for
the second respondent, opposed the petition and contended that the
material collected during the course of investigation clearly discloses a
prima facie case against the petitioner and the other accused for the
offences alleged.
5.2. It is submitted that the investigation has revealed that the
petitioner and the second respondent became acquainted during their
B.Tech. studies and solemnized their marriage at Arya Prathinidhi
Sabha, Hyderabad, on 03.10.2015. Prior to the marriage, the petitioner
allegedly induced the second respondent to obtain an amount of Rs.20
Lakhs, from her parents, and after the marriage subjected her to
physical and mental cruelty by repeatedly demanding additional
amounts of money.
5.3. It is further alleged that, while the second respondent was
pursuing her higher studies and employment in Canada, the petitioner
compelled her to transfer money to him and, upon her return to India,
threatened and abused her and drove her out of the matrimonial home
while demanding additional dowry of Rs.40 Lakhs, It is also submitted
that, during the course of investigation, the material witnesses were
examined and their statements corroborate the allegations made in the
complaint.
7
5.4. Learned counsel further contends that the truthfulness, veracity,
or otherwise of the allegations, as well as the alleged inconsistencies
pointed out by the petitioner, are matters requiring appreciation of
evidence, which can only be undertaken by the trial Court during the
course of trial. Such disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in
proceedings seeking quashing of criminal proceedings under the
inherent jurisdiction of this Court. Since the material collected during
the investigation discloses a prima facie case warranting a full-fledged
trial, the criminal proceedings ought not to be stifled at the threshold.
Accordingly, it is prayed that the Criminal Petition be dismissed.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions and perused the
material available on record.
7. The principal contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is
that the very factual foundation of the present prosecution is
irreconcilably inconsistent with the stand earlier taken by the second
respondent herself. It is not in dispute that, prior to the registration of
the present crime, the second respondent had lodged a complaint,
which was registered as Crime No. 374 of 2021 on the file of Alwal
Police Station. In the said complaint, she categorically asserted that no
marriage had ever been solemnized between herself and the petitioner
and further alleged that the petitioner had fabricated a marriage
certificate by manipulating and editing photographs. The said crime
8
ultimately culminated in a closure report, the investigating agency
having found the complaint to be false.
8. The second respondent instituted the present complaint,
asserting a completely contrary version, namely, that a valid marriage
had been solemnized between herself and the petitioner on 03.10.2015
and that, following the marriage, the petitioner and his parents
subjected her to cruelty and harassment in connection with unlawful
demands for dowry. Thus, the very foundation of the present
prosecution rests upon an assertion which is directly destructive of the
stand earlier taken by the complainant herself.
9. The statements of the witnesses recorded during the course of
investigation do not materially improve the prosecution case. The de
facto complainant (L.W.1) has substantially reiterated the allegations
contained in the complaint. The statements of L.Ws.2 to 4 merely
reproduce what the complainant is stated to have narrated to them
after the alleged incidents. None of the said witnesses claims to have
personally witnessed the alleged payment of dowry, the acts of
physical or mental cruelty, or the alleged demand for additional dowry
of Rs.50 Lakhs said to have been made on 21.03.2022. Their
statements are admittedly founded upon information received from the
complainant and, therefore, cannot be treated as independent
corroboration of the allegations.
9
10. Another circumstance which assumes considerable significance
is the unexplained delay in lodging the complaint. According to the
prosecution, the alleged acts of cruelty commenced immediately after
the marriage in the year 2015. Nevertheless, the present complaint
came to be lodged only in March, 2022. Except making general
allegations that the harassment continued over the years, no
satisfactory explanation is forthcoming for such considerable delay.
Though delay, by itself, may not invariably be fatal in matrimonial
offences, particularly where continuing cruelty is alleged, the absence
of any plausible explanation assumes relevance while evaluating
whether the allegations disclose a prima facie case, especially when
viewed in conjunction with the complainant’s earlier contradictory stand
regarding the very existence of the marriage.
11. The investigation also appears to have been conducted in a
mechanical manner. Although the earlier complaint in Crime No.374 of
2021 and the closure report submitted therein constituted material
having a direct bearing on the credibility of the allegations made in the
present complaint, there is nothing in the charge sheet to indicate that
the Investigating Officer examined or even adverted to the effect of the
complainant having taken diametrically opposite stands regarding the
existence of the marriage.
10
12. Equally, the allegations relating to cruelty and demand for dowry
are couched in general and omnibus terms. Except making broad
assertions that the petitioner repeatedly demanded money and that
Accused Nos.2 and 3 demanded additional dowry, neither the
complaint nor the statements of the complainant and the other
witnesses disclose the specific dates, circumstances, or overt acts
constituting “cruelty” within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC or
establishing the ingredients of the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
13. This Court is conscious of the settled principle that the
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
is extraordinary in nature and must be exercised sparingly, with
circumspection, and only to prevent abuse of the process of any Court
or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. At the same time, where the
allegations are inherently improbable, manifestly attended with mala
fides, or fail to disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged
offences, this Court would be justified in exercising its inherent
jurisdiction to prevent the abuse of the criminal process. 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 the
inherent jurisdiction of the High Court may be exercised, including
cases where the allegations do not prima facie constitute any offence
11
or where the criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala
fides and have been maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance. Likewise, in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand,
(2010) 7 SCC 667, the Supreme Court observed that courts must
exercise greater care and caution while dealing with prosecutions
arising out of matrimonial disputes, particularly where exaggerated or
omnibus allegations are levelled against the husband and his relatives.
The said principle was reiterated in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v.
State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599, wherein the Supreme Court held that
criminal proceedings founded upon vague and general allegations,
without any specific attribution of overt acts, deserve close judicial
scrutiny, and continuation of such proceedings against family members
would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
14. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present
case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution is
fundamentally impaired by the complainant’s own irreconcilable and
mutually destructive versions regarding the very existence of the
marriage, which constitutes the foundational requirement for invoking
Section 498-A IPC. The remaining material collected during the course
of investigation merely reiterates the allegations made by the
complainant and does not furnish any independent corroboration of the
essential allegations relating to cruelty or unlawful demand for dowry.
12
Viewed cumulatively, the complainant’s contradictory stands regarding
the marital relationship, the absence of specific allegations constituting
the essential ingredients of the offences alleged, the lack of
independent corroborative material, the unexplained delay in lodging
the complaint, and the apparent failure of the Investigating Officer to
consider the earlier complaint and the closure report therein, render the
continuation of the present criminal proceedings an abuse of the
process of the Court.
15. Accordingly, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner has made
out a fit case for the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, and that the
proceedings are liable to be quashed in order to secure the ends of
justice and prevent abuse of the process of law.
16. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Consequently the
proceedings against the petitioner/Accused No.1 in C.C. No.2188 of
2022 on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at
Bhadradri Kothagudem District, are hereby quashed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________
Date: 23.07.2026 N.TUKARAMJI, J
MRKR
