Partly allowed

Srikanth Dadi, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC4 Aug 2025CRLP/3589/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing petition against seven accused in a dowry harassment FIR. The court found specific allegations of cruelty and dowry demands against accused No.1 involving disputed facts unfit for quashing, but found allegations against his relatives vague with no specific overt acts, and quashed proceedings against them relying on Preeti Gupta.

What the court decided

AI extract

Srikanth Dadi, Vs The State of Telangana — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2025)

! I I I I

i I I

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶5

MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST

¶6

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶9

CRIMINAL PETITION NO:3589 OF 2025

¶10

Between:

¶11

.1. Srikanth Dadi, S/o .Shar abandam, Aged 34 Years, Occ: Business, Rlo.2-12116, Vayuputra Colony, Vidyaranyapuri, Hanumakonda, Warangal, Telangana-506001 .

¶12

Dadi Sharabandam, S/o. Dadi Ramaiah, Aged 60 years, Occ. Business, Rlo.2-12-116, Vayuputra Colony, Vidyaranyapuri, Hanumakonda, Warangal, Telangana-506001 .

¶13

Dadi Lalitha, Wo. Sharabandam, Aged 55 Years, Occ: Housewife, Rlo.2-121 16, Vayuputra Colony, Vidyaranyapuri, Hanumakonda, Warangal, Telangana 506001.

¶14

Dadi Sunitha, Wo Rajaboina Srishilam, Aged 35 Years, Occ: Housewife, Rlo.2-12-1 16, Vayuputra Colony, Vidyaranyapuri, Hanumakonda, Warangal Telangana - 506001.

¶15

Dadi Shirisha, Wo. Komma Mallesham, Aged 29 Years, Occ: Housewife, Rlo.2-12-1'16, Vayuputra Colony, Vidyaranyapuri, Hanumakonda, Warangal, Telangana-50600'1 .

¶16

6 Rajaboina Srishilam, S/o. Rajaboina Janaiah, Aged 40 Years, Occ: Business, Rlo.2-12-1 16, Vayuputra Colony, Vidyaranyapuri, Hanumakonda, Warangal, Telangana-506001 .

¶17

Komma mAllesham S/o Not Known, Aged 35 yrs., Occ: Business, Rlo 2-121 16, Vayuputra Colony, Vidyaranyapuri, Hanumakonda, Warangal, Telangana -^506001.

¶18

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED Nos. 1 -7

¶19

AND

¶20

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad, Through Karimnagar women PS' Karimnaga

¶21

..RESp.NDENT No.1

¶22

Ravi Polam, R/o. 8-3-24618, Road No.S, Amjanadri Street, Ramchandrapur Colony, Karimnagar, Telangana - 505001.

¶23

...RESPONDENT No.?DE FACTO COMPLAINANT

¶24

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 the entire proceedings in Crime No. Crime No. 07 of 2025. dt- 24.01 .2025of Karimnagar Women PS, Karimnagar P.S, Cyberabad.

¶25

l I I I I I I I

¶26

l.A. NO: 2OF 2O2s

¶27

Petition under section 528 of BNSS praying that ir the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petitior, the High court may be pleased to grant stay of a[ further proceedings inr;ruding arrest of the Petitioners/Accused in crime No.07 of 2025, dr. 24.01 zo2s ot Karimnagar Women PS, Karimnagar p.S, Cyberabad, pending disprs5sl of the present Criminal Peititon.

¶28

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing tte Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri pULI SAryANARAYANA, Advocate for the petitioner and the Sri. M. Vivekananda, Assistant Public Prosecutor on beharf of the Respo ldent No.1 and of Sri A. Praneeth, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶29

The Court made the following OROER:

¶30

ll lr li u I I I I l j 1 ! I ) l I I i i I I

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICEK. SUJANA

¶32

CRIMINAL PEIITION No.3589 of 2025

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

This criminal petition is filed seeking to^quash the proceedings against proceedings against the petitioners/ accused Nos. I to 7 in Crime No.7 of 2025 of Karimnagar Women Police Station, Karimnagar District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 85 read with 3(5) of BNS and Section 4 of DP Act.

¶35

The brief facts of the case are that on 24.O1.2O25 by^frr,e respondent No.2 I de focto complatnant stating that^his daughter, Polam Jyotsna, was subjected to^physicaland mental harassment by her husband, Dadi Srikanth^(A1),a sofrware employee residing in Bheemaram, Hanmalonda district, at the insligation of his family members i.e.,^the petitioner Nos.2 to 7. The harassment began after ttre marriage while the^{victim was} staying at her inlaws'^house and continued even after she^was taken to America,^primarily over demands for additional dowry. Since the^victimwas unable to return to India and appear in^person at^{the Police}

¶36

¶37

sKs,J (.rl P.fo.3589 of2025

¶38

Station, her father filed the complaint on her be half. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered the case against the petitioners for the above said offences.

¶39

Heard Sri Puli Satyanarayana, lea-rred counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as we..l as Sri M. Vivekarranda, learned Assistant Public proseclrt)r appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 - State and Sr A. praneeth, learned counsel appearing on behalf of resporrcient No.2/d.e facto^complainant.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioners subrr.it.ted that the petitioners were wrongly implicated in the said c:ase and the allegalions leveled against them, pima facie, clo nct constitute any offence as alleged in the complaint. He furt-rr:r submitted that the petitioner Nos.2 to 7 . never interfe red in the matrimonial disputes between accused No.1 and the daughter of respondent No.2. He further submitted that l.here are no specifrc allegations against the petitioner Nos.:l to 7 except stating that they supported accused No. l. IJ-rerefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

¶41

¶42

SI(s,J Crl.P.Ito.3589 of2()25

¶43

¶44

On the other hand, learned Assistant^{Public Prosecutor} and learned counsel for respondent No.2,^{respectively,} opposed the submissions made by the^{learned counselfor the} petitioners stating that the investigation was not^yet completed and further, the statement of the^{victimwas also} not recorded. At this stage,^{quashing of proceedings against} the petitioners does not arise. Therefore, he^prayed tJle^Court to dismiss the criminal^petition.

¶45

In the light of the submissions^made by both^the learned counsel and upon a^{perusal of the materialavailable} on record, it appears that the^{marriagebetweenthe daughter} of respondent No.2 and accused No.l^{was solemnized on} LO.O9.2023, and disputcs arose thereafter,^{leading to} allegations of mental and^{physicalharassment,dowry} demands, and ill-treatment by^{accused No.1. The allegations} against accused^No.1 are specific^{and pertainto acts of cruelty} and dowry harassment s,ithin the^{matrimonial home, and} therefore, involve disputed^{questions of fact which cannotbe} adjudicated upon^{at thisstageunderthe inherentjurisdiction} of this Court.

¶46

¶47

sKs,J :r1.P.f,o.35a9 of 2O2S

¶48

¶49

However, with respect to petitioner l{os.2 to 7, it appears that the aJlegations made in the complzLint zue vague and general in nature, and no specihc overt act has been attributed to her. There is no clear materiz.l to show her continuous presence in the matrimonial hous:hold or direct involvement in the alleged acts. The Honble ljupreme Court in the case of Preetl Gupta v. State of Jharkhrrndr, held that in matrimonial disputes, relatives who are no, residing with the couple ald against whom no specific allega,ions are made should not be roped in casually, as it amounts to abuse of criminal process.

¶50

In the present case, even assuming the a l:egatl()ns to be true, the role of petitioner Nos.2 to 7 does n \ prirna facie disclose commission of any offence, and <.<.ntinuation of proceedings against her would amount to abtrsr: tf process of law. Hence, this Court is of the considered vie tv lhat the proceedings against accused No.1 shatt conrinue. w,hile the proceedings against petitioner Nos.2 to 7 ar( hablc to be quashed.

\zoro;^z scc ooz

SI( ,.J Crl.P.No.35E9 of 2Or5

¶56

i i I

¶57

9- Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed in part ald the proceedings against petitioner Nos.2 to 7 in Crime No.7 of 2025 of Karimnagar Women Police Station, Karimnagar District, are hereby quashed. Further, the Investigating Oflicer is directed to proceeding further against petitioner No. I /accused No.1.

¶58

Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, sha-ll stand

¶59

closed.

¶60

SD/. P.C .NAHABHUSHAMBA EPUTY REGISTRAR

¶61

//TRUE COPY//

¶62

I ECTION OFFICER
I)

¶63

TO' r^,^-^6 vaianar.ter 1. The station^{House officer,Police station Karrmnagarwomen, Karimnagat} District.

¶64

il; cc to^{Sri. PULI SATYANARAYANAAdvocate [OPUC]'}

¶65

O;"^CC to^{Sri. A. PRANEETH,Advocate [OPUC]} ;. i;; cci^{to pueLrc inosecuron' Hish court for the state of relangana} at HYderabad [OUT].

¶66

Two CD^CoPies

TTS/gh

Yt-

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0410812025

ORDER

CRLP.No.3589 ot 2025

o 6 1HE g 14
c
(J ol'
u 2,1 toyG,
o
+ +
';ohtc nF-o *

¶74

CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED

¶75

dieA a &*

Srikanth Dadi, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Srikanth Dadi, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V Praveen Kumar Reddy Vs Shriram Chits Private Limited

Kunta Sravanthi Vs Pingili Vishwanath

Baddam Gangaram Vs The State of Telangana

C. Dhanraj Goud Vs The State of Telangana

Muneeruddin Vs The State of Telangana

Dr L Janardhan Reddy (Died) Vs M/s. Narne Estates Private Limited