logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 TSHC 136 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court for the State of Telangana
Case No : Criminal Petition No. 9647 of 2021
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. SURENDER
Parties : Gajula Sandeep Versus The State of Telangana
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: J. Suresh Babu, Advocate. For the Respondents: Public Prosecutor (TG).
Date of Judgment : 28-03-2026
Head Note :-
Indian Penal Code - Sections 498-A & 506 -
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC
- Section 482 of Cr.P.C

2. Catch Words:
- Dowry harassment
- Specific allegations
- Quash proceedings
- Section 482

3. Summary:
The petitioners A‑2 to A‑6 seek to quash criminal proceedings filed under Sections 498‑A and 506 IPC. The complaint alleges dowry harassment by A‑1, but provides only vague, omnibus allegations against the other petitioners without any specific facts. The court notes that such unspecific accusations cannot sustain prosecution. Citing *Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar* and the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the court holds that proceedings against A‑2 to A‑6 must be dismissed. The case against A‑1 will continue. Any pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are to stand closed.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed
Judgment :-

1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/A-1 to A-6 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1564 of 2021, on the file of III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Kothagudem. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent – State. Perused the record.

3. The 2nd respondent lodged a complaint on 17.06.2021 stating that on 22.04.2016, her marriage was performed with A-1, and at the time of marriage, Rs.10 lakhs cash and 4 tulas of gold were given. She was blessed with a boy, who was around 4 years old at the time of lodging the complaint. A-1 started harassing the 2nd respondent both physically and mentally, asking her to bring additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-. A-1 used to threaten her by saying that to continue their marriage life, she had to bring additional dowry. On account of constant harassment by A-1, the 2nd respondent informed A-2 and A-3, who are her parents-in-law, as well as A-4 to A-6, who are her sisters-in-law. However, they supported A-1’s harassment. On 28.04.2025, all the members drove her out of the marital house. On the basis of the said complaint, a charge sheet was filed against these petitioners/A-1 to A-6.

4. Except for the omnibus allegation that the petitioners/A-2 to A-6 supported A-1, no other specific allegation forms the basis to array the petitioners as accused in the case. There are absolutely no allegations leveled against A-2 to A-6. Not a single event is narrated, nor is the manner in which the harassment took place described. Only on the basis of such vague allegations, A-2 to A-6 cannot be subjected to prosecution.

5. In Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State of Bihar ((2022) 6 SCC 599), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in the absence of specific and distinct allegations against the accused, the proceedings can be quashed. Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the Court should be careful in proceeding against relatives who are implicated solely on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations.

6. In view of the present facts of the case and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited above, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed and the proceedings against petitioners/A-2 to A-6 are quashed, while the proceedings against A-1 shall go on. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal