Telangana High Court
Smt. Sujatha vs State Of Telangana on 24 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. 5097 OF 2024
DATE: 24.07.2026
Between :
Smt. Sujatha and three others.
... Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 to 5
AND
The State of Telangana, Represented by Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, and
another.
... Respondents.
ORDER
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “CrPC.”), seeking quashment of the
proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No. 2809 of 2022 on the file of
the learned XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad.
2. The petitioners are arrayed as Accused Nos. 2 to 5 in the aforesaid
Calendar Case facing accusations for the offences punishable under
Sections 498-A, 406, 506, 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short,
“IPC.”), and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short,
“DP Act“).
2
NTR,J
Crl.P. No. 5097 of 2024
3. Heard Mr. Palle Sriharinath, learned counsel for the petitioners and
Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing
for respondent No.1-State.
4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the de facto complainant was
married to Accused No.1 on 24.04.2019 and, at the time of the marriage, a
sum of Rs.11,50,000/- was paid as dowry to Accused No.1 and his family
members. It is alleged that, within a few months of the marriage, Accused
No.1 and the petitioners (Accused Nos.2 to 5) subjected the de facto
complainant to physical and mental cruelty, abused her in filthy language,
repeatedly questioned her character, and demanded additional dowry of
Rs.5,00,000/-. It is further alleged that the harassment continued during her
pregnancy and even after the birth of her daughter, and that she was
neglected, repeatedly sent to her parental home, and ultimately driven out of
the matrimonial home along with her daughter. The de facto complainant
further alleged that, although intervention and counselling at the Bharosa
Centre resulted in a temporary reconciliation, the accused resumed the
alleged acts of harassment thereafter. It is also alleged that Accused No.1
was maintaining an illicit relationship and pressurized the de facto
complainant to consent to a divorce, while the other accused supported his
conduct by abusing and intimidating her. Specific allegations have also been
made against Accused No.2, the mother-in-law, of assaulting the de facto
complainant with a mosquito bat and insisting that she agree to a divorce,
and against Accused No.6 of attempting to perform black magic upon her
3
NTR,J
Crl.P. No. 5097 of 2024
and forcing her out of the matrimonial home. Alleging continuous
harassment, criminal intimidation, physical assault, criminal breach of trust,
and persistent demands for additional dowry, the de facto complainant
lodged the present complaint, pursuant to which a crime was registered and,
upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners have
been falsely implicated in the present case solely by virtue of their
relationship with Accused No.1 and that they have no role whatsoever in the
alleged offences. It is submitted that the allegations contained in the
complaint are omnibus in nature, bereft of material particulars, and do not
attribute any specific overt acts to the petitioners, so as to constitute the
offences alleged against them. It is further contended that the petitioners
were residing separately from Accused No.1 and the de facto complainant
and were not concerned with their day-to-day matrimonial affairs. According
to the learned counsel, the complaint does not disclose the essential
ingredients of the offences alleged. Insofar as the petitioners (Accused
Nos.2 to 5) are concerned, it is further submitted that there are no specific
particulars regarding the alleged demand for additional dowry, acts of
cruelty, criminal intimidation, or assault attributed to them, and that the
Investigating Officer has not collected any incriminating material connecting
them with the alleged offences. Learned counsel further submits that the
petitioners have been unnecessarily roped into the criminal proceedings with
4
NTR,J
Crl.P. No. 5097 of 2024
an ulterior motive to harass the entire family of Accused No.1, thereby
misusing the criminal justice process. Placing reliance on the decisions of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023
SCC OnLine SC 1083, and K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, (2018) 14
SCC 452, it is contended that a prosecution founded on bald, omnibus, and
generalized allegations against the relatives of the husband is legally
unsustainable. It is, therefore, urged that the continuation of the criminal
proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the
process of the Court. Accordingly, learned counsel prayed for quashing of
the proceedings against the petitioners in the Calendar Case.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1
opposed the petition and contended that the material collected during the
course of investigation clearly discloses the involvement of the petitioners
(Accused Nos.2 to 5) in the commission of the alleged offences. It is
submitted that the de facto complainant has specifically alleged that, after
the marriage, all the accused subjected her to physical and mental cruelty,
demanded additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-, and repeatedly drove her out
of the matrimonial home. It is further submitted that there are specific
allegations against Accused No.2 of assaulting the de facto complainant with
a mosquito bat for not bringing the additional dowry. Learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor further submits that, upon completion of the investigation,
sufficient material was found indicating the involvement of the petitioners in
5
NTR,J
Crl.P. No. 5097 of 2024
the alleged offences and, accordingly, a charge sheet has been filed against
them. It is, therefore, contended that a prima facie case exists against the
petitioners and that the truth or otherwise of the allegations can be
determined only upon appreciation of evidence during the course of trial.
Hence, it is prayed that the Criminal Petition be dismissed.
7. I have carefully considered the submissions and perused the material
on record.
8. The law relating to the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is well settled. The power is extraordinary in nature and is required
to be exercised sparingly 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,
including cases where the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, do
not constitute any offence or where the proceedings are manifestly attended
with mala fides.
9. Equally well settled is the principle that, in matrimonial disputes,
where there has been an increasing tendency to implicate every member of
the husband’s family, criminal prosecution cannot be permitted to continue
against the relatives merely on account of their relationship with the husband
unless the complaint discloses specific allegations constituting the
6
NTR,J
Crl.P. No. 5097 of 2024
ingredients of the offences alleged. In Geeta Mehrotra and Another v. State
of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 741, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that a casual reference to the names of family members, without
specific allegations, is insufficient to prosecute them. Likewise, in Preeti
Gupta and Another v. State of Jharkhand and Another, (2010) 7 SCC 667,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court cautioned the Courts against permitting criminal
prosecution on the basis of exaggerated versions and omnibus allegations in
matrimonial disputes. More recently, in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and
Others v. State of Bihar and Others, (2022) 6 SCC 599, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court reiterated that the relatives of the husband cannot be
compelled to undergo a criminal trial on the basis of vague and general
allegations, and that specific instances disclosing their active involvement
are indispensable. The same principle was reiterated in K. Subba Rao
(supra), wherein the proceedings against the relatives of the husband were
quashed on the ground that the allegations were general in nature and
lacked material particulars. Similarly, in Abhishek (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court observed that implicating every member of the matrimonial
family without attributing specific overt acts constitutes an abuse of the
criminal process.
10. Keeping the aforesaid principles in view, this Court is required to
examine the allegations made against the present petitioners.
7
NTR,J
Crl.P. No. 5097 of 2024
11. The gravamen of the complaint primarily concerns the conduct of
Accused No.1, namely, the alleged demand for additional dowry, maintaining
an illicit relationship with another woman, compelling the de facto
complainant to consent to a divorce, and neglecting to maintain the de facto
complainant and the child. Insofar as the present petitioners are concerned,
except for a general allegation that all the accused harassed the de facto
complainant and demanded additional dowry, the complaint does not
disclose the date, place, or manner in which each of the petitioners allegedly
participated in the commission of the offences.
12. The allegations are conspicuously silent regarding the specific role
attributed to Accused Nos.2 to 5. Although the prosecution contends that
Accused No.2 assaulted the de facto complainant with a mosquito bat,
neither the complaint nor the statement of the de facto complainant recorded
during the course of the investigation specifies the date, circumstances, or
manner of the alleged assault. Further, there is no independent
corroborative material in support of the said allegation. The medical report
merely records the presence of simple injuries and does not connect those
injuries with any particular accused. Likewise, except for the interested
version of the de facto complainant, no material has been collected to
demonstrate the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged entrustment or
misappropriation of the dowry articles. Similarly, there is no material
indicating any specific act constituting criminal intimidation attributable to the
8
NTR,J
Crl.P. No. 5097 of 2024
petitioners (Accused Nos.2 to 5). Merely because the Investigating Officer
has filed a charge sheet against all the accused does not preclude this
Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., from
examining whether the allegations disclose the essential ingredients of the
offences alleged, so as to justify the continuation of the criminal prosecution.
13. A mere allegation that all the accused demanded additional dowry and
abused the de facto complainant, without attributing any distinct or specific
role to each of the petitioners, cannot constitute a sufficient basis to compel
them to undergo a criminal trial, as has consistently been held by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court. The petitioners have also specifically pleaded that
they were residing separately from Accused No.1. Except for the bald
assertion of the prosecution that the petitioners participated in the alleged
acts, no material has been collected during the course of the investigation to
prima facie discredit the said plea. This Court is conscious of the settled
principle that disputed questions of fact ordinarily cannot be examined while
exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. However, where the
allegations are inherently vague and the continuation of the criminal
proceedings would result in the harassment of the relatives of the husband
without any specific material indicating their involvement, this Court would be
justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the process
of the Court.
9
NTR,J
Crl.P. No. 5097 of 2024
14. In the considered opinion of this Court, permitting the criminal
proceedings to continue against the present petitioners, in the absence of
specific allegations disclosing the essential ingredients of the offences
alleged against each of them, would amount to allowing a roving and fishing
inquiry, which is contrary to the law consistently laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court. Accordingly, this Court is satisfied that the present case falls
within the categories illustratively enumerated in Bhajan Lal (supra),
warranting interference in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.
15. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings against
the petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 to 5 in C.C. No. 2809 of 2022 on the file of
the learned XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, are
hereby quashed. However, it is made clear that the observations made
herein confine only to the adjudication of present petitioners and shall not
influence the trial against Accused No.1 or any other accused against whom
the proceedings before the trial Court continue in accordance with the law.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________
N.TUKARAMJI, J
Date: 24.07.2026
svl
