Tarlapally Anuradha, Vs The State of Telangana — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2025)

Tarlapally Anuradha, Vs The State of Telangana — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal Petition No.15966 of 2025 disposed of with a direction that the Investigating Officer consider the petitioners' reply dated 25.09.2025 to the notice dated 23.09.2025 in accordance with the guidelines in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273; miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, stand closed; no quashal of FIR No.78 of 2025 was granted at this stage.

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings in FIR No.78 of 2025 against the petitioners (parents of accused No.1) should be quashed as an abuse of process, counsel contending they were falsely implicated merely because they are the parents of accused No.1, that respondent No.2 and accused No.1 lived separately and never resided with the petitioners, who never harassed respondent No.2 for additional dowry, and that respondent No.2 made omnibus allegations against the petitioners after a lapse of ten years from the date of marriage. +1 more

Court's answer

The Investigating Officer is entitled to consider the reply submitted by the petitioners dated 25.09.2025 to the notice dated 23.09.2025, by following the guidelines formulated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273.

Ratio / Principle

With the above direction, the criminal petition was disposed of (no quashal of the FIR proceedings was granted at this stage); as a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, stand closed.

Key takeaways

Having considered the rival submissions and the material on record — including that notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C./Section 35(3) BNSS was issued on 23.09.2025, the petitioners' reply dated 25.09.2025 was submitted and delivered on 26.09.2025, and the investigation is under progress — the court opted for directing consideration of the reply rather than quashing the proceedings at this stage.ratio¶¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Telangana High Court (Justice J Sreenivas Rao, 04.12.2025) disposed of CRLP.No.15966 of 2025 filed under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. by Tarlapally Anuradha and Tadapally Muralidhar — arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3 in FIR No.78 of 2025 (Women Police Station, Central Zone, Hyderabad District) for offences under Sections 85, 351(2) and 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — seeking quashment on grounds of false implication as the parents of accused No.1 and omnibus dowry allegations made ten years after marriage. The Additional Public Prosecutor reported that notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C./Section 35(3) BNSS was issued on 23.09.2025, the petitioners replied on 25.09.2025 (delivered 26.09.2025), and investigation is under progress. The court directed the Investigating Officer to consider the petitioners' reply dated 25.09.2025 to the notice dated 23.09.2025 following the Apex Court guidelines in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, and disposed of the petition; pending miscellaneous petitions (including I.A.No.2 of 2025 seeking stay) stand closed. No quashal was granted at this stage.

-l

I I i I I I I 1 l i i i I I I

t3303 I

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

CRIMINAL PETITION NO:^'15966 OF 2025

Between:

1 Tarlapally Anuradha, W/o T. Muralidhar, Aged 59 years, Occupation: Housewife, Resident of Villa No. 55, Maple Town Villas, Valley View Enclave, Bandlaguda Jagir, Suncity, Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana

...Accused No.2 (Mother)

2 Tadapally lvluralidhar, S/o T. Late Nagabhushanam, Aged about 64 years, Occupation: Busrness, Resident of Villa No. 55, l,4aple Town Villas, Valley View Enclave, Bandlaguda Jagir, Suncity, Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana.

...Accused No.2 (Father)

AND

The State of Telangana,, Represented by the Publlc Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

...Respondent No.1

Satyavani Cheekoti@ Tarlapally Satyavani,, W/o Tarlapally Puneeth, Aged 31 years, Occupation. Housewife, Resident of H.No. 3-6-731, Street No. 12, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad - 500029

...Respondent No.2/Defacto Complainant

Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to FIR No.78 of 2025 On the file of the Women Police Station, Central Zone, Hyderabad District, quash the same.

l.A. NO: 2OF 2025

Petition under Section 528 of B N.S.S. praying that i,r lhe rircumslances stated in the Memcrandum of Grounds of Cflminal Petition, th'r ligh Court nray be pleased to stay all Fuiher proceedings, in FIR No.78 of 2015 On the file of the Women Police Sta.ion. Central Zone, Hyderabad Districl,^perrd ng clisposa! of the present quash p etitro n.

l1!s Petltior co'r nq on for hearing, upon perusing tr.r ,'lerroranCr-im of GrounCs of Crinrinal Petit on and Lrpon hearing the argum:nls of Srl Vemula Vamsh , Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri Jithender R to Ve'eramalla, the Addrtional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondert No.1 and none appeared for the Rr;spondent No.2

The Court made the following: ORDER

I I : 1. I I I I ! I I I

IN'[I'IE HIGH COUt{I' ['OR TIIE S'I'A'I-E OF-t'EI-ANGANA AT TIYDERABAD

,TIIF], I{ONOURAI]LE SRI JUSTICI J.SREI,],NIVAS RAO

CRIMINAL PE'II'[ION No.l 5966 of 2025

Date:04.12.2025

Betrvecn:

Tarlapally Anuradha and another

petltioners

AND

'fhe Statc o I- -f elangana, Represented b), its Public Prosecutor High Court fbr the State of Telangana, H1,'derabad and another

respondents

Ordcr

Ihis Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the

proceedings in FIR No.78 of 2025, on the file of rhe Women policc Station, Hyderabad, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3, lor the of-fences punishable under Sections 85, 351(2) and 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for shorr.BNS,) and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 1961.

2 Heard Mr.V.Vamshi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jitendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional public prosecutor

appeariE for respondent No. I /State

2

l,camec counsei lbL the ])etitioners suL,r rittod that the petitioners have not corrnrittecl any ofl-ence artd tl cv rvere Ialsely implicaterl rn thc prcse rrt criurc onlr, on the ground lrat they are the parents of accused rr'o. L Iic ]Lrlhcr subrnitted that^-cspondent No.2 and accuscd No.l. a{ier tlteir nrarrtaqe. ltave been lring separately, and at no poi rrl o 1' tinrc the v iravc rcsidcd with thc ltctitioners.^'l'he petitioners nevcr hanrsscd rcsponclent No.2 lor irt tiitional dorvry Hencc. the inr:,rcclienLs o1' Sectiorr ,!5 of thc BNS l.r i not attracted against the pclitioncrs. llc tirrlher sLrbmittecl that resp.rrtdent No.2 lias madc omnibu:; ullcgations aeainst thc pctitioners a{i,:r' a lapse o1'ten years tiom tht; date of rturrriage . Ucnce, continuatior, .rf proceedings against thc pctitr()ncrs IS lu clcal' abuse ol process o1- lrrr',' and the samc are liable to be rlLrashed corucct

Per contra. Ieamccl Additional Public ProsecLrt( 'r submitted that subsequent to rcgistration ol' crirnc. the luvestigatrnrr Officer issued notice to thc petitioncrs urlder Scction 4l-A olCr.P.t^l/Section 35(3) ol thc Bharativa Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,²⁰²³ (lirr r;hon,^'BNSS') on 23.09.2025 and the petitioners havc submitted re1rl", to the notice on 25.09.2025. l{e furthcr submitted that the Investigaii'rg Officer will consider the rcpfy, submitted by the petitioncrs. IIe firrther subrnitted

3

that u'hcther thc petitioners have committed the alleged olfences or not has to be levealed during the course of investigation, ar-rd since the investigation is in progress, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashnrcnt ofthe proceedings at this stage

Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective

parlics and alier perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that subsequent to registration of crime, the Investigating Officcr has issued notice to [he petitioners under Section 4 1-A ol Cr.I'].C.i Section 35(3) ol'Lhe fINSS on 2i.09.2025 and petitioners submitted replv to the notice on 25.09.2025 through speed post and the reply \ra s delivered to the lnvestigating Oflicer on 26.09.2025. According to leamed Addirional Public Prosecutor, thc investigation is under progress.

'l'aking into consideration the above facts and cilcumstances of the case, the Investigating Otticer is entitled to consider the reply submitted by the petitioners dated 25.09.2025 to the notice dated 23.09.2025, by fbliowing the guidelines formulated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. Slate of Biharl

'^{(2014) 8 scc 273}

4

7 . With th€ above clircction, the criminal petition i:r rlisp,:se d ot.

As a seqLrc[. rniscellaneous itetitions, pendillr]^ji zrnv, statrd

closed.

Sd/- NAYANI^{CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO} -^{t)E:PUTY REGISTRAR} \

//TRUE COPY//

'TSECTION OFFICER

_--}

t'

To, 1. The Xlll Aoditional^{chrefMetropolitanl,4agistrateat Na nrally.Hyderabad.} 2 The Station House^ofl 'cer'^{iru;;;;;"ii;d SiatioaCeJ-r':t Zbre Hvderabad}

i*o cci t" the^{public prosecutor,Hrgh court for the S ate of Telangana at} Hvderabad.(OUT)

Hvderabad.(OUT) + oire-cd to^{'S'i. vemutaVanshr. Advocate [OPUC]}

Two CD^CoPies

Sa,DL u,

HIGH COURT

DATED:04/'l212025

ORDER

CRLP.No.15966 of 2025

---=r :'-: .=-.- -
z'ir.r. IttE ci,i;;s-.'._.
' (.' .:<br>-)C - P'<br>tj 5 td Zt25 :ii
,.t) - ?t!
' :.i.
: r . , ' r'',)i ./
n- ,'-,
,..-.-.J/
. :' :rt:.1-:4'

DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION

1
',
s