Telangana High Court
Vejandla Kodavati Suvarthamma vs The State Of Telangana on 23 July, 2025
1
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4973 OF 2025
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners – accused
seeking to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.345 of 2020 on the file
of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Mancherial, registered for the offence under Section 498-A and 290
of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC“) and Sections 3 and 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short “DP Act, 1961“).
2. Heard the submissions of Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned
counsel for the petitioners and Smt.Shalini Saxena, learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 – State.
3. The learned petitioner has submitted that the petitioners are
facing false allegations under Sections 498-A and 290 of IPC and
Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act and that they never harassed the de
facto complainant. He further submitted that they are no way
connected with the allegations leveled against them and that they
used to stay far away from respondent No.2 and her husband and
that they never harassed respondent No.2 at any time. He further
submitted that the complainant along with her husband used to
stay at Nalgonda and their relationship got strained due to the
differences between both of them and that her husband David Paul
2
wanted divorce from her but the petitioners herein never interacted
with the de facto complainant or her husband at any time with
regard to their marital issues. He further submitted that there are
no overt acts even according to the case of the prosecution and
that just because they are the relatives to the husband of the de
facto complainant, they cannot be roped in with blanket
allegations. He therefore, prayed to quash the further proceedings
against the petitioners herein.
4. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has submitted that
there are specific allegations against the petitioners in the charge
sheet laid down by the police, the police have thoroughly
investigated the case and that the statements of witnesses reveal
that the petitioners herein have harassed the de facto complainant
and thus, she prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. Perused the record.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel that petitioner No.1
who is accused No.2 in the charge sheet passed away during the
pendency of the proceedings. Thus, the counsel has represented
the case of petitioner Nos.2 to 5.
3
7. Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 herein are accused Nos.3 to 6. The
record discloses that the de facto complainant alleges that accused
Nos.1 to 5 harassed her for additional dowry but she has not
stated specifically as to the overt acts of the petitioners herein with
regard to the demand of additional dowry. Her allegation against
the petitioner No.5 is that her husband was intending to marry
petitioner No.5 and with that intention these people used to harass
her.
8. According to the averments of the charge sheet accused No.1
is the husband of de facto complainant, accused No.3 is the
brother of accused No.1, while accused No.5 is the wife of accused
No.3, that means these two are the brother and sister-in-law of
accused No.1 and they are residing at Srikakulam.
9. The de facto complainant alleges that accused Nos.3 and 5
used to frequently visit accused Nos.1 and 2 at Mancherial while
she stayed along with her husband initially for few months after
marriage and during their visit they used to harass her along with
the other family members. There are no specific allegations of
harassment leveled against these petitioners. It is her case that all
these petitioners used to harass her to give divorce to accused
No.1, so that accused No.1 can marry accused No.6.
4
10. The allegation leveled against accused No.4 is that she is the
maternal aunt of accused No.1 and as she left her husband in her
childhood, she used to stay in their house and she used to
instigate accused No.1 to develop negative attitude against the
de facto complainant and that when the other family members
harassed her for additional dowry, accused No.4 also used to
encourage them for additional dowry. However, the addresses
shown in this petition and as per the crime record reveal that
accused No.4 is a resident of Secunderabad, while the family of
accused No.1 resides at Guntur. Even as per the version of de
facto complainant in her complaint she used to reside at
Mancherial along with her husband.
11. It is further alleged that accused No.6 visited the de facto
complainant, while she was staying at her parent’s house and
picked up a quarrel saying that she intends to marry accused No.1
and further that she is ready to give Rs.10 Lakhs dowry to the
family of accused No.1 and further threatened the de facto
complainant to give Rs.10 Lakhs as additional dowry.
12. It is the case of the de facto complainant that her husband
accused No.1 along with other family members used to harass her
for additional dowry under a threat of divorce and with a proposal
for marriage of accused No.1 with accused No.6.
5
13. On one breath the de facto complainant says that the
petitioner/accused No.6 has visited her and quarreled with her
saying that she intends to marry accused No.1 and is ready to give
dowry of Rs.10 Lakhs to the family of accused No.1, on the other
hand, she again says that accused No.6 has demanded her to give
Rs.10 Lakhs additional dowry to the family of accused No.1. This
version of the de facto complainant does not win the confidence of
this Court and it is opined that there is no strength in the
allegations leveled against the petitioners herein.
14. Thus, all these points would strengthen the case of the
petitioners that they are facing false allegations in the hands of the
de facto complainant.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a
decision of this Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of
Telangana 1 and the said case is referred in Rajesh Chaddha Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh 2, which is relied upon by the learned
counsel, wherein the Apex Court held that:
“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 involvement should be nipped
in the bud. It is a well recognised fact, borne out of judicial
experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the
members of the husband’s family when domestic disputes arise1
(2025) 3 SCC 735
2
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1094
6out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping
accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised
allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution.
Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of
legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary
harassment of innocent family members. In the present case,
appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the family of
appellant 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 same would be an abuse of the
process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made
against each of them.”
16. It was further held by the Apex Court that the tendency of
roping these sections, without mentioning any specific dates, time or
incident, weakens the case of the prosecutions, and casts serious
suspicion on the viability of the version of a Complainant. By
observing the same, the Apex Court has allowed the appeals filed
by the accused who were convicted under Section 498-A of IPC and
Section 4 of DP Act, 1961 by the High Court.
17. The above cited decisions are squarely applicable to the case
on hand. Admittedly, the petitioners are not the residents of
Mancherial where the de facto complainant has last resided with
her husband and no specific incidents or overt acts of the accused
are stated by the de facto complainant, thus, this Court finds no
strength in the allegations pointed out by the de facto complainant
against the petitioners herein, therefore, the same are liable to be
quashed.
7
18. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the
proceedings against the petitioner Nos.2 to 5/accused Nos.3 to 6 in
C.C.No.345 of 2020 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial, are hereby quashed.
Further, it is made clear that the observations made in this order
shall not have any bearing on the proceedings pending before the
trial Court against accused No.1.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________________________
JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
Date: 23.07.2025
ns