CRLP/9109/2024 of Byorini Sarangapani Vs The State of Telangana on 18 December 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 6 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.137 of 2018 on the file of Princpal Junior Civil Judge - Cum - Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Haumakonda. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under section 498-A of lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act-1 961 (for short 'The Act').

2. Heard Smt.K.Jayasree, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 6 and Mr.M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additiona! Public Prosecutor for the State. None entered appearance for respondent No.2- de facto complainant. Perused the record

3. ln brie'f, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage of de facto complainant was performed with accused No.1 on 01 .05.2014. At the time of marriage, her parents gave cash and gold ornaments towards dowry. Later, petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2-de facfo complainant set up a firmily at Hafeezpet, Hyderabad and out of wedlock, she became pregnant, but due to ill health her pregnancy was aborted. Though it was informed to the petitioners that the de-facto complainant was marriecl earlier to another person and later her first marriage was dissolved, but the petitioner No.'l under the guise of the first marriage started harassing her to get additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and the petitioner Nos.2 to 6 herein supported him and thereby subjected her to physical and mental harassment and demanded to give divorce to her and driven her out of house. Basing on the said complaint, police registered a case in Crime No.158 of 2017. Later the police completed the entire investigation and filed charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C.No.137 of 2018 on the file of Princpal Junior Civil Judge - Cum - Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Haumakonda.

4. lt is contended by the learned e,ounsel for petitioners that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case by the de facto complainant. Petitioner No.1 is the husband of de facto complainant, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are parents of the 1"t petitioner and petitioner Nos.4 and 6 are +-r:,ti.i; .r rt. ,.! .. .. .]----..-#

i i brother and sister of the 1't petitioner and petitioner No.S is the wife of the 4th petitioner. The present complaint was lodged by the de facto complainant after eleven years of her marriage with accused No.1. lt is submitted that the de facto complainant was already married and obtained divorce from her 1't husband, but the said fact was not disclosed to the petitioners herein at the time of marriage. When the de facto complainant and her parents were questioned about the same, the de facto complainant to cover up the same, lodged a complaint with all false and frivolous allegations. lt is submitted that there was no exchange of any dowry and when there was no exchange of dowry, the question of harassing the de facto complainant for any dowry much less the additional dowry does not arise. lt is further submitted that in the cross examination of the de facto complainant in C.C.No.137 of 2018 she deposed that after filing this case she re-married another person namely Kakkanala Suman"reddy who is her third husband and blessed with two children. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners are abuse of process of law. Hence, he prays to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. S. On the other hand, the leamed 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 t I proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.

6. On perusal of the material, there are no specific allegations against the petitioners. lt is apparent from the record that after lodging the present \

complaint, de facto complainant has moved on in her tife and married another person, which is third marriage for her and she was blessed with two children and she dep,q5s6 the same before the trial Court in her cross examination. Hence, this Court opines that there is no point in continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners, which is alldged to be the second marriage to tlre de facto complainant with the petitioner No.1 herein, when the de facto complainant has married another person by leaving the company of petitioner No.1.

7. For the foregoing discussion, the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 6 cannot be put to the ordeal of trial and the proceedings against them are liable to be quashed.

Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is altowed, quashing the proceedings against'the pr:titioners-accused Nos.1 to 6 in C.C.No.1 37 of 2O1B pending on the file of Princpal Junior Civil Judge - Cum - Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Haumakonda. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand ctosed. Sd/- U. SUDHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAh' Note: \ ]his Order is amended as per the Court Order Dated: ZSl0gtZOZ6 iflffi ftlaxi,'ttrfiflt*,,'ff*." tn the ptace of tAdditional tuJ[iiiFilri ll.ass Masir;trare, wgrJnlaiH't# i# ii;u 3t fl ill? l:,iT-fy&'Iil i*#i5 ",io \ -This amended Order substitutes the Earlier order despatched on 2O-O1 -2026. Sd/. C. DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hanumakonda.

2. The S.H.O., Women Police Statioin, Warangal City, WarangalDistrict,

3. One CC to SRl. K JAYASREE Advocate IOPUC]

4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT].

5. Two CD Copies PK/DLlSa

It HIGH COURT DATEET:1811212025 2510312026 AMENT)ED ORDER CRLP.No.9109 of 2024 3 zI t,rAR 2026 * ?lE 5 i-+, ^it t

-}& :-- - ,\. ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION tI .:I'old'.