CRLP/16036/2026 of Galipelli Durga Prasad Vs The State of Telangana on 12 October 2026

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition has bcen flled under Section 52U ol thc Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhira. 2023 (for shorr 'the BNSS') by the petitioners/accu sed Nos.l to 5 seeking to quash the p|oceedings in Crime No.l52 of 2026 of Karimnagar Womcn Police Station, Karimnagar District, registcred fbr the offences punishable under Scctions 85 and 351(2) r/w 3(5) o1'thc llharatiya \vaya Sanhita.2023 (lbr shorrthe Bi.,vS') and Section 4 olthe Dow'ry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. Ileard Mr.N.Avaneesh Kumar, learned counsel, represcnting Mr.B.Srinivasulu, learned counsel lbl the petitioners, and Mr.Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor tbr respondent t-

No. I . With their consent, this criminal petition is disposed of at the stage the prc'sent crir.ne . [:', cn according to thc allcgatiorts levelled in the

3. 1 l.earned counsel lor the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not cornmitted an1' ofll-cnce and they har e been falsely implicated in complaint. there are no allegations much less specific allegations against the pctitioner Nos.2 to 5 and they wcre lalsely implicated onll' on the ol'arlnr ssion ground that petitioner \o.l is fhther. petitiorrer Nos.3 and 4 are sisters, and petitioner No.5 is blother-in-law o1' petitioner No.l by making No.l lived along ivith pctitioncr Nos.2 to 5. I-herefbre, question of omnibus allegations. At no point of tirne, respondent No.1 and petitioner harassrrent and clemand ol additional dou'r-'- as alleged in the complaint does not arise. Respondent No.2 left the matrimonial house of petitioner No. I roluntarily ancl shc loclged the plcsent cornplainL with an irltention to haress thc pctiLionels. IIence. continuation o1'the proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse ol'the process lau. 3 .2. Ile lurther subrrittcd that thc o1'f ences levelled against the petitioners arc punishable u ith imprisonment of less than seven years and the Investigating Officer withor-rt loliowing the rnandatory procedure AS prescribed uncler Secrion j-5(j) ol'Lhe iINSS and the guidelines issued by ,-- are true or not, the sarne will br- revcaled during the course ol the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Biharr, is proceeding with the investigation and the same is contrary to law. 4.1 Per contra. the learned Additionat PLrblic ['rosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations ll'ellcd in the cornplaint about the demand of additional dowry and harassment made by the petitioners. Whethcr the allcgations levelled against the petitioners in the complaint investigation, especially the investigation is under progress. 4.2 lle lurther subrnittcd that thc oflcnces levelled against the petitioners are punishable with irnplisonment of lcss than seven vcars and the Investigating Officer is trying to serve the notice under Section 35(3) of thc BNSS to the petitioners and the petitioners are avoiding receiving the notice and not cooperating with the invcstigation liour the date o1' registration of the present crime. Ilence, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing ol' the proceedings.

5. 'I'he Iearned counsel lbr the pctitioners by way of reply submitted that thc petitioners will cooperate with the investigation

6. Ilaving considered the rival subrnissions rnade by the respective parties and after perusal olthe rnatcrial available on record, it revcals rhat (20 l4) 8 SCC 173

petitioner No.l and respondent No.2 are husband and wife and their marriage w'as perlbrmcd on 08.04.2026 and thereafter, matrimonial disputcs arose betriccn thenr. \\'hcthcl the allegations levelled against the pctitioners in thc cornplaint are truc or not, the sarne will be revealed AddiLional Public l)r'osecutor. thc inr,cstigation is under progress. l'he ollence s ler elled against the petitioners are punishable with irnprisonment o1'less than seven vears. F.r'en according to the learned AddiLional Public ['rosecutor. thc Irrvest.igating Officer wants to lollow the due procedure as contemplated under Section 35(3't of the BNSS

7. .l al<ing into conside ration thc pecr.rliar f'acts and ciroumstances of the casc and in r ieri ol the sr,rbrnissions rrade bv the leamed Additional Public Prosecutor, the petitioners/accu sed Nos.1 to 5 are directed to appear bclbre the Irrr.'estigating Ollrccr on or before 27.10.2026 and on sr.rch appcarance. the lrrr e51igs1s1',* Of f rcer is directed 1o scrupulor-rsly follo',r the due procedure AS contemplated under the provisions ol the durin.rr the course of invcstigation. F.r'en according to the learned B\SS and thc guiclclincs issucd b1 the I lon'ble Apex Courl in Arnesh Kumar (supr.r). lhc pctitioncls shall coopcratc with the investigation It is nc-edlcss ro mention thar rhe petitioners are entitled to put lorth their g.ier' 31199 beftrre thc Inr r-sri'r.arins or'ilcer b1 raising all the pleas which il are available to them and they are also entitled to submit the documents, which are in their possesslon

8. With the above directions, tl.rc (lliminal I'etition is disposed of Miscellaneous applications, pending ilany, shall stand closed' SD/- P.C.SULEKHA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1'TheStationHouseofficer,KarminagarWomenPoliceStation,Karimnagar

2. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana' at Hyderabad [OUT]

3. One CC to Sri B. Srinivasulu, Advocate tOPUCI

4. Two CD CoPies VH/BA G To,

HIGH COURT DATED: 1211012026

ORDER

CRLP.No.16036 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION ,,, >(t'T€ g :)oc 1b ocI2u$ i (i' . -,1, -niplt6