Disposed

Smt. Rukmini Sangam, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Dec 2025CRLP/16453/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of C.C.No.1776 of 2022 under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Counsel restricted the prayer to dispensing with their personal appearance. The High Court dispensed with appearance, subject to representation through counsel on every hearing date, without expressing any opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Personal appearance of accused Nos.2 to 6, 8 and 9 dispensed with, subject to representation through counsel on each date of hearing.

Smt. Rukmini Sangam, Vs The State of Telangana — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶5

Between

¶6

smt. Rukmini sangam,, wo.Late s Gopinath Aged about.72 years, occ. F"19^{Employ-ee R/o. Flat No.101,Mathai's- residencechanakyapuri,} Safilguda, GRP Secunderabad

¶7

Qri. sangam Mukund Rao,, s/o. Late s Gopinath Aged about. 53 years, occ. ly!_Epnloye.e^{R/o. Flat No.101, Mathai's residence Chanakyapuri,Safitguda,} GRP Secunderabad

¶8

gryI.sgngam saritha, w/o. s Mukund Rao Aged about. 43 Years, occ. House wife R/o. Flat No.101, Mathai's residence- chanakyapuri, safilguda, GRp Secunderabad

¶9

sri. sangam Murali,, s/o. Late Gopinath Aged about. s1 years, occ. pvt llgloyee^{R/o. Flat No.101, Mathai's resid-enceChanakyapuri,Safilguda,} GRP Secunderabad

¶10

smt. sangam Rajamani@Rajni,, wo. sri s Murali Aged about. 43 years, Occ. House Wife Fi/o. Flat No.101, Mathai's residence Chanakyapuri, Safilguda, GRP Secunderabad

¶11

smt. Chitralekha,, wo. sri K sunil Ramlal Aged about.42 Years, occ. pvt llgloyee^{R/o. Flat No.101, Mathai's resideice Chanakyapuri,'safilguda,} GRP Secunderabad

¶12

smt. Anupama,, w/o. sri Gopal Aged about.4g Years, occ.House wife R/o. Flat No.101, Mathai's residence Chanakyapuri, Safilguda, GRp Secunderabad

¶13

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 TO 6,8 & 9

¶14

AND

¶15

The state of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad

¶16

Smt. Archana Sangam, w/o. Late Mukesh Sangam Aged about.41 Years, Occ.Pvt Employee R/o. H.trlo,184-7 16, lnjanbowli Gandni Nagar, Falaknuma, Hyderabad..

¶17

...RESPONDENT'COM PLANANT

¶18

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Quash proceedings in C.C. No.1776 of 2022 on the i]le of the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad U/ s. 4gg-A, 406, 506 lPC, Section 4 & 6 of DP Act which is pending against the Petitioners/Accused No.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 & 9.

¶19

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025

¶20

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that iin the circumstances stated in the fvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to STAY all further proceedings in C.C. No.1776 ot ZO2i on the file of the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad U/s. 498-4, 406, 506 lPC, section 4 & 6 of Dp Act including appearance of the Petitioners/Accused No.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 & g, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition.

¶21

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri JEERIPOTHULA SRINIVAS ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No1. and none appear for the Respondent No2.

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

r-l i.'

¶24

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶25

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

¶26

CRIMINAL PETITION No.16453 of 2025

¶27

Datez 11.12.2025

¶28

Between:

¶29

Smt.Rukmini Sangam and six others

¶30

petitioners

¶31

AND

¶32

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court For the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and another

¶33

respondents

¶34

ORDER

¶35

This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking, to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.lV76 of 2022, on the file of leamed XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.2 to 6, 8 and 9, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶36

Heard Mr.J.Srinivas, leamed counsel for the petitioners and V[r.V.Jithendar Rao, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent ltfu.f

¶37

¶38

Though the criminal petition was filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1776 of 2022, the leamed c,ounsel for the petitioners restricted his prayer requesting this Court to dispense with the appearance of the petitioners/ accused Nos.2 to 6, 8 and 9 in C.C.No,l776 of 2022, on the file of leamed )(V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad.

¶39

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not opposed the submission made by the learned counsel for petitioners.

¶40

5- In view of the above submissions, and with<lut expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the presence of the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 6, 8 and 9 in c.c.No .t7'16 of 2022, on the file of leamed XV Additional Chief Metropolitanr Magistrate at Hyderabad, is dispensed with, subject to the condition that they shall represent through their counsel on each and every date of hearing. II'the presence of the petitioners is required, they shall appear before the trial Court. In case of their non-appearance on the specific date fixed by the trial court for their appearance, the trial court is entitled to proceed with the matter, jn accordance with law.

¶41

tl 'i ,il i

¶42

I ii ii :,

¶43

I I I I i I :! l 'i l ,i :J

¶44

:: E +I T

¶45

¶46

6 Accordingly, the^{criminal petition is disposedof'}

¶47

Pending miscellaneous^{applications, if any, shall stand}

closed.

t\ Il

I'TRUE^COPYfl

SD/.^{B REKHA} ANT

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

l: i:

The xv^{AdditionalchiefMetropolitan Magistrate,at Hyderabad}

¶56

The^{Station House officer, PoliceStation WPS, South Zone,Hyderabad}

¶57

3.CCtoSRl.JEER|PoTHULASR|N|VASAdvocate[oPUc]

¶58

Two^{CC to SRl.PUBLICPROSECUTOR High court for the state of} i"fungun,^{at HYderbad[OUTI}

¶59

Two CD^CoPies

HIGH COURT

DATED;1111212025

$
,c
(J 1 6 0 EI 2l?5
*

¶65

ORDER

¶66

CRLP.No.16453 of 2025

¶67

GRLP IS DISPOSED^OF

¶68

N t \6 .L^v{

Smt. Rukmini Sangam, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rukmini Sangam, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaik Shafi Vs The State of Telangana

Thakur Sujatha Vs The State of Telangana

UzmaTarannaum @ UzmaTarannum Vs The State of Telangana

Kadamanchi Mahendar, Vs The State of Telangana

T. Srinivasa Rao, Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Iqbal Ahmed Vs The State of Telangana