Telangana High Court
CRLP/16222/2026 of DANDOTHI NARSIMLU Vs THE STATE OF TELANGANA on 5 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 16222 OF 2026 Between: 1. DANDOTHI NARSIMLU, S/o D Ramappa, Age: about 63 Years, Occ .Retired ASl, R/o
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 16222 OF 2026
Between:
1. DANDOTHI NARSIMLU, S/o D Ramappa, Age: about 63 Years, Occ .Retired ASl, R/o H.No. 12-2-7091718, Guddimalkapur, Mehdipatnam, Asifnagar, Hyderabad - 500028, Telangana
2. DANDOTHI ANANTHA, LAKSHIVI, Wo Dandothi Narsrrntu, Age about 55
Years, Occ..Homemaker, R/o H.No. 12-2-70917t8, Guddimalkapur, It/ehdipatnam, Asifnagar, Hyderabad - 500028, Telangana
3. DANDOTHI ANAND, S/o Dandothi Narsimlu, Age. about 40 years, Occ. pvt.
Employee, R/o H.No. 12-2-7091718, Guddimalkapur, Mehdipatnam, Asifnagar, Hyderabad - 500028, Telangana
4. DANDOTHI ANIL, S/o Dandothi Narsimlu, Age: about 31 years, Occ..pvt.
Employee, R/o H.No. 12,2-70917t8, Guddimalkapur, Mehdipatnam, Asifnagar, Hyderabad - 500028, Telangana, Presently residing at Singapore.
5. DANDOTHI VISHALA, W/o Dandothr Anand, Age: about 34 years, Occ.:Homemaker, R/o H.No. 12-2-70917/8, Guddimalkapur, Mehdipatnam, Asrfnagar, Hyderabad - 500028, Telangana
...Petitioners/Accused Nos. A-2 to A-6
AND
1 THE STATE OF TELANGANA, Rep by its Pubtic Prosecutor, High Court High Court Building, Telangana . RespondenUComplainant
2. NEELIIMA KAVALI, D/o. Kavah Hanumathu, Aged: 30 years, Occ Private Employee, R/o. Padmavathi Colony, Balajinagar, Parigr Municipality.
...RespondenUDefacto Complainant
Petitron under Section 528 of BNSS prayrng that rn the circumstances stated in the I\/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Quash the proceedings against Accused Nos. A 2 to 4-6 in Crime No 349/2026 registered by Parigi Police Station Vikarabad District on 17.O9.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 85 316(2)/316(4),11811\1118(2), 351 r/w 3(5) of BNS and Sections 3, 4 86 6
of the Dowry Prohib tion Act. 1961 and all further proceedings arisrng therefrom
l.A. NO: 2OF 2026
Petitroir under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the lVemorandum of Grounds of Crrminal Petilron, the High Court riay be pleased to direct the Respondent Police not to take any coercive steps against the Petitioners/A-2 to A-6
rn connection with Crime No. 349/2026, dated 17.09 2026, registered for the offences under Sect ons 85. 316(2)/316(4), 1 18(1)/1 18(2), 351 r/w 3(5) of BNS and Sections 3. 4
86 6 of the Dowry Prohrbition Act. 1961. including arrest. detention or any other coercrve action.
Thts 'retit on coming on for hearing. upon perusing the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petrtron and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Rajashekar Thallapally.
Advocate for the Petrtioners and the Srr Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 .
The Court made the following: ORDER
---f
TNTHE HIGH COURTFORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.16222 of 2026
CNR.No. IIBHC010679322 026
Date: 05.10.2026
Between:
Dandothi Narsimlu and 4 others
-..Petitioners
AND
The State ofTelangana and another
...Respondents
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 6 seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.349 of 2026 of Pargi Police Station, Vikarabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 316(2), 1 18(2) and 351 r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS') and Sections 3,4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, l96l (for short 'DP Act').
2. Heard Mr.Rajashekar Thallapaliy, leamed counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor fgr respondent No.1
-r
3. With their consent, the criminal petirion is disposed of at the stase of adrnission
4. l,earned counsel lor the petitioners submitted that the petitioners har e not committed the alleged oflence and have been falsely implicated in the present cnme by making omnibus allegations solely on the ground that the petitioners are family mer-Lrbers ol accused No.1, who is none other than the husband of respondent \o.2. At no point of time did respondent No.2 live with the petitioners: hence, the question of the petitioners harassing respondent No.2 or demanding additional dowry does not arise, as alleged in the complaint. l le further submitted that respondent No.2 left the matrirnonial house of her husband, i.e., accused No.1, and filed the plesent complaint by giving a criminal colour to the matrimonial dispute. He further submitted tbat initiatly, the crime was registcred for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 316(2), 118(1), and 351 read with Section 3(5) of the BNS and Sections i. :l and 6 of the DP Act, and subsequentlv, the offence under Section I I 8( 1) of the BNS rvas altered to Section I 18(2) of the BNS. Exccpt fbr rhe offence under Section 1lg(2)of the BNS, thc orher oflences arc punishablc with imprisonment of less than t-- seven years. Section 118(2) was subsequently altered with an intention to avoid following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "BNSS"), and the guidelines formulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihart. He further submitted that accused No.l was arrested ot 24.09.2026 and produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Parigi, Vikarabad District, for remand. However, the leamed Magistrate did not accept the remand and granted him bail. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready and wiiiing to cooperate with the investigation and, therefore, prayed that the Investigating Officer may be directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioners.
5. Per contra, the leamed Additional Pubiic Prosecutor submits that there are specific allegations in the complaint that the petitioners harassed respondent No.2 for additional dowry. Whether the allegations levelled in the complaint are true or not the same has to be ascertained during the course of investigation. He further submitted that, based on the material available before him, '1zo t+y t scc zl:
thc Investigating Officer altered the offence from Section 1 18(1) of the BNS to Section I l8(2) of the BNS. I{owever, the remand of accused No.l was not accepted by the leamed Magistrate. Since, except for the offence under Section 1i8(2) of the BNS, the other oft-ences arc punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, the lnvestigating Officer intends to follow the procedure contcmplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and the guidelines laicl clon'rr by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra)
6. ln vierv of the above. this Court is of the considered view that the insredients of' Section I 18(2) of the BNS are not attracted against the pctitioners. Except for the offence under Section 118(2) of the BNS. the other offences Ievelled against the petitioners are punishable s'ith imprisonment of less than seven years. Even accordrns to the lcarned Additional Public Prosecutor. the Investigating Officer will follow the procedure contemplated under Sectjon 35(3) ol the BNSS and the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apcx C'ourt in Arnesh Kumar (supra)
'laking into consideration the peculiar facts and circr-rmstanccs rrf the case, the petitioners are directed to appear befb,e the I,vestigari,g officer on or before 14.10.2026 and the
--- To,
\I Investigating Officer is directed to follow the procedure contempiated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and follow the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra).It is needless to mention that the petitioners are entitled to put forth their grievance, if any, upon receipt of notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, and produce all documents available with them before the Investigating Officer. The petitioners shall also cooperate with the investigation.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/-C. DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER
1. The Judicial First Class [/agistrate at Parigi, Vikarbad District.
2. Station House Officer Police Station Pargi, Vikarabad District
3. One CC to Sri Rajashekar Thallapally, Advocate [OPUC]
4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]
5. Two CD Copies BA/GNK qg-'
HIGH COURT DATED: 0511012026 ! /l r- o e )'4rt ( 16 ocl2sl6 -) (-) t, C, N
ORDER
CRLP.No.16222 of 2026 DlSPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION ,Si't'I ( \ ,-j, c
.,i-., $