CRLP/4027/2024 of Rachakonda Srikanth Vs The State of Telangana on 19 January 2026

:ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 ot Cr.P.C. by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.2752 of 2023 pending on the file of the learned lX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal (for short 'trial Court'), registered for the offences under Sections 498-A, 42O and 506 of the lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act').

Heard Mr. M.S.Prasad, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. CH.Srikanth, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. M Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State. lnspite of the conditional order passed by this Court on 22.'12.2025, learned counsel for respondent No.2-de facto complainant failed to appear before this Coufi and argue 19 JANUARY, 2026

the matter. Hence, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is heard on, behalf of respondent No.2, and orders are passed on merits. Perused the record.

3. Brief facts of the case: 3.1 . The petitioner-accused No.1 is the husband of the de facto complainant. and petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are the father and mother of petitioner-accused No.1 respectively.

3.2. The marriage between petitioner-accused No.1 and de facto complainant was solemnized on 17.08.2022. At the time of marriage, certain amount of dowry was given. lt is alleged that the petitioners- accused Nos.1 to 3 further demanded a vaddanarn, however, the parents of the de facto complainant expressed their inability to meet the said demand 3.3 After the marriage, the de facto complainant joined the company of petitioner-accused No.1 at her matrimonial home. During her stay in lndia from 1808.2022 to 09.09.2022 i.e., for about 22 days, the petitioners subjected her lo mental harassment by stating that it was the duty of her parents to give more dowry to the petitioner-accused No.1 and that if they had opted for another alliance, they would not have received less than 1 crore rupees as dowry I

3.4. On 21 .O8.2O22, when the nuptial ceremony was performed, and even during their honeymoon in Maldives, petitioner-accused No.1 did not make any advances towards conjugal life. The de facto complainant did not take the same seriously, believing that things would improve after they shifted to USA. Thereafter, they moved to USA, where the petitioner-accused No.1 forced her to take up a second job to earn more money. When she refused on the ground that it was illegal, he abused and slapped her.

3.5. The petitioner-accused No.1 neglected the de facfo complainant and the household and was involved in fraudulent activities in his business. When the de facto complainant questioned him regarding the same, he abused and beat her. He has also forced her to purchase a house by taking loan and using her personal savings. He used to avoid her frequently, pick up quarrels without any reason during late evenings, and sleep in another room.

3.6. The petitioner-accused No.1 used to consume testosterone tablets' however, he was never successful. Though the de facfo complainant conceived once, her pregnancy was terminated due to absence of foetal heartbeat. Subsequently, on her insistence, the petitioner-accused No.1 underwent pathology tests, which revealed that he was suffering from diabetes, abnormal cholesterol levels, low testosterone, and low sex hormone binding globulin. The Doctor opined that he was unfit for family - life and incapable of procreation 3.7. When the de facto complainant questioned him regsrding the medical opinion, petitioner-accused No.1 abused and beat her, and petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 threatened her with {i1s 6snssQuences through phone calls. Despite the same, lhe de facto complainant advised petitioner-accused No.1 to consult a specialist to improve [i5 6salth' but he insisted on divorce and forced her to apply for the same.

3.8. The petitioner-accused No.1 is a chronic alcoholic, consumes hookah excessively, and suspected the character of the de facto complainant. Ultimately, on 17.08.2023, petitioner-accused No.1 abandoned the de faclo complainant and fearing insecurity, she aPPlied for leave and returned to lndia.

4. lt is contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case by the de facto complainsnl, with a mala fide intention to wreck vengeance arising out of matrirnonial disputes. There is an unexplained and inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. The de facfo complainant never had any love or 3;fection towards the petitioners and was never inclined to lead marital life with petitioner-accused No.1. She neglected the petitioner-accused 11e.'1 and household responsibilities and maintained relationships with other persons. When the petitioner-accused No.1 requested her to lead a happy marital life, she demanded divorce and also demanded Rs.50,00,000/-. Upon his refusal for the same, the present complaint was lodged by the de facto complainant against the petitioners with false and frivolous allegations.

5. lt is further contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the parties have already obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent in the Court at USA. After returning to lndia, the petitioner-accused No. t has also filed a divorce petition against the de facto complainant, which is presently pending. The petitioners- accused Nos.2 and 3 are residing separately and have no involvement in the marital life of petitioner-accused No. 1 and de facto complainant. Though allegations of demand for additional dowry and physical and mental harassment were made, no specific date, time and particulars were mentioned in the complaint. All the witnesses are either family members or neighbours of the de facto complainant and are interested witnesses. Except bald and general allegations, no specific overt acts are attributed to the petitioners. Thus, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. /\

6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (' contended that all the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of trial, and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. For the sake of convenience, Section 498-4 of IPC is extracted hereunder: 498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.- For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means-(A)any wiltul conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman: or(Uharassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related lo her to meet any unlavvful demand for any propefty or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

8. ln the judgment of State of Haryana and others v. CH.Bhajan Lal and othersl , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein lhe extraordinary power under Afticle 226 or the inherenl powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the High Couft either to prevent abuse of the process of any Couft or otherwise to secure lhe ends of justice, though it may not be possible lo lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or I t992 scc 1cri1 a26

igid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:

(1) Where the allegations made in the First lnformalion Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;

(3) Where the uncontrovefted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police offi@r without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Sectbn 155(2) of the Code;

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and conlinuance of the proceedinqs and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned ACt, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrbved pafty;

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

(2) Where the allegations in the First lnfumation Repott and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.l.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of lhe Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;

9. ln the judgment of Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. Sfate C of Telangana and anothef, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraph Nos.18, 25, 31 and 32 held that: '18. A bare perusal of the F/R shows that the a egations made by respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that appellant No.1 harassed her and that appellant Nos.2 to 6 instigated him to do so, respondent No.2 has not provided any specific details or descibed any particular instance of harassment. She has also not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the alleged harassment occuned. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations.

25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvemenl should be nipped in the bud. lt is a well-recognised facl, borne out of judicial expeience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic dlspules arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsuppoded by concrete evidence or paiiculaised allegations cannot form the basrs for ciminal prosecution. Couds must exercise caution in such cases lo prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. ln the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the family of appellanl No.1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the sarr.e would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of thetn.

31. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. Slale of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 held thal the coutts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with lhese complaints and must take pragmatic realties into cotlsideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. Ihe allegations of harassment by the husband's close relalives who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely diflerent complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection

32. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FIR No.82 of 2022 filed by respondent No.2 was initiated wik t zo2n NSc 953

I ulterior motives to setf/e personal scores and grudges against appellant No.1 and his family members i.e., appellant Nos.2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present case at hand falls wilhin category (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lal. Therefore, the High Court, in the present case, ered in not exercising the powers available to it under Section 482 CrPC and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the Courl's process by continuing the ciminal prosecution against the appellants." '10. ln numerous cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with similar cases held that making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498-4 of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Therefore, the Courts are bound to ensure whether there is any pima facie case against the husband and his family members before prosecuting the husband and his family members.

11. ln the present case, admittedly, it is not in dispute with regard to the marriage between lhe de facto complainant and petitioner-accused No.1. According to the allegations made in the cornplaint, the petitioners subjected the de faclo complainant to harassrnent from the date of marriage and that petitioner-accused No.1 left her company on '17.08.2023. However, the present complaint was lodged on '16.10.2023, i.e., there is a delay in lodging the complaint. There is no plausible or satisfactory explanatlon for the delay caused in lodging the complaint. lf '10 the de facfo complainant had indeed been subjected to continuous (. harassment as alleged in the complaint, she would not have remained silent for such a long period and would have complained much earlier. Her prolonged silence, without any justification, casts a doubt on the genuineness of the complaint.

12. Upon a perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and charge sheet, even if taken on face value, it is evident that no substantial and specific allegations and descriptive particulars of harassment or cruelty or demand of dowry or threats amounting to criminal intimidation have been made against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3. lt is also evident from lhe record that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are residing separately from petitioner-accused No.1 and the de facto complainant, having no involvement in their marital life. lt is also not the case of the de facto complainant that any dowry article was handed over to the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3. 13 With regard to the allegation that the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 suppressed the fact that petitioner-accused No. l was suffering from several health issues, including being unfit for conjugal life and cheated, the de facto complainant herself admitted in the complaint itself that she conceived and that the pregnancy was subsequently terminated due to absence of foetal heartbeat. This admission clearly rebuts the allegation

6) of petitioner-accused No.1 being unfit for consummation of marriage and had cheated the de facto complainant.

14. For prosecuting an lndian citizen for an offence alleged to have been committed outside lndia, the prosecuting agency is mandatorily required to obtain prior sanction from the Central Government as contemplated under Section 'l88 of the CrP.C Admittedly, no prior sanction of the Central Government was obtained by the prosecuting agency in the present case. '16. For the foregoing discussion and in view of the judgment referred to above, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.l to 3 amounts to sheer abuse of process of the law, and hence, the proceedings against them are liable to be quashed

17. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.2752 of 2023 pending on the file of the learned lX Additional Metropolitan \ \ Magistrate at Medchal I I I I I

15. lt is to be noted that the marriage between the petitioner-accused No.'l and the de facto complainant was dissolved by mutual consent in the Court at USA on 28.02.2024, which was signed on 23.04.2024. The spouses are currently living separately in USA.

Pending misce[aneous apprications, if any, shalr stand crosed. i l SD/- M.NAGAMANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR S CTION OFFICER To, //TRUE COPY' 1 The lX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal. 2 The SHO, PS Pet Basheerabad, Medchal.

3. One CC to SRl. SRIKANTH CHINTALA Advocate [OPUC]

4. One CC to Ms. T. SIVA PARVATHI Advocate IOPUCI

5. One CC to ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Advocate IOPUC]

6. Two CD Copies GEiPSL PntA,

HIGH COURT DATED:'t 9/01/2026

ORDER

CRLP.No.4027 ot 2024 ALLOWING THE CRLP WITHOUT COSTS {,utc. k lHE S Ta o ,,J 1 3 .i ir /.,lb * * 5\>\){