Vattakuri Venkateswara Rao @ Venkateswarlu… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2026)

Vattakuri Venkateswara Rao @ Venkateswarlu… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the proceedings in S.C.No.137 of 2011 against the petitioner/Accused No.3; miscellaneous applications, if any, stood closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings in S.C.No.137 of 2011 (offence under Section 304-B IPC) against the petitioner/Accused No.3 should be quashed under Section 528 BNSS, given that identically placed Accused Nos.4 to 6 had already been discharged by order in Crl.R.C.No.1625 of 2012 dated 07.01.2025. +1 more

Court's answer

Taking into consideration the submissions and in view of the orders passed in Crl.R.C.No.1625 of 2012 dated 07.01.2025, the Court found it a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

Ratio / Principle

The Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in S.C.No.137 of 2011 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-I Additional Family Court, Medchal, Medchal Malkajgiri District, against the petitioner/Accused No.3 are quashed; miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

Key takeaways

General allegations are levelled against accused Nos.4 to 6 and no specific and distinct allegations are made out against them; in the absence of any specific role attributed to them, it would be unjust to force them through the tribulations of trial.ratio¶78
Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case (Crl.R.C.No.1625 of 2012) was allowed and the proceedings in S.C.No.137 of 2011 were quashed insofar as the petitioners/accused Nos.4 to 6 were concerned.ratio¶83

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

J. Sreenivas Rao J. (High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, 10.02.2026) allowed Crl.P. No.17403 of 2025, filed under Section 528 BNSS by Vattakuri Venkateswara Rao @ Venkateswarlu (Accused No.3), and quashed the proceedings in S.C.No.137 of 2011 (offence under Section 304-B IPC) before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-I Additional Family Court, Medchal, Medchal Malkajgiri District, against him. The Court acted on parity: identically placed Accused Nos.4 to 6 had already been discharged by this Court's order in Crl.R.C.No.1625 of 2012 dated 07.01.2025 (E.V. Venugopal J.), which held that only general and vague allegations, without any specific and distinct role, were made out against them, relying on Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar, Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana and Geeta Mehrotra v. State of Uttar Pradesh; continuation against the petitioner was thus an abuse of the process of law. A copy of the revision order is appended to the paper-book.

i

[³³⁰³ I

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 17403 OF 2025

Between:

Vattakuri Venkateswara Rao @ Venkateswarlu, S/o Guruvaiah, aged about 73 years, Occ Retired Government Enrployee, R/o. H No.5-7A, Undrajavaram village, Sadaru Mandal, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh.

...PETITIONER/ACC USED

AND

The State of Telangana , Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State ofTelangana At Hyderabad

Reddy Veera Venkata Satyanarayana.. S/o. Subba Raju, aged about 65 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rlo 24-14, Velpur vtllage, Tanuku lVlandal, West Godavari District -534 2 1 6.

...RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANTS

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 praying that in the circumstances stated in the [\4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in S C.No. 137 of 2011 on the frle of the ll Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum I Additional Family Court, Medchal, IVledchal li/a lkaj^g iri District..

LA. NO: 2OF 2025

Petition under Sectron 528 of BNSS, 2023^praying that in the circumstances stated in the [t/]emorandum of Grounds of Criminal^Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including the appearance of the petitioner in S.C.No. 137 o{ 2011 on the file of the ll Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-l Additional Family Court, Medchal, Medchal Malkajgiri District,;

This Petition coming on for heartng,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri C SHARAN

REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner Sri M.Vivekananda leddy. Asst public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and r ( ne appear for the Respondent No.2

The Court made the following: ORDER

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 17403 of 2o25

Date:10.02.2026

Between:

Vattakuri Venkateswara Rao @ Venkatesu'arlu

Pe titioner/Accused No.3

AND

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State o[ Tclangana a[ Hyderabad and another

Respondents

::ORDER

This Criminal Petition has bcen fited by the pe Litione r/ accused Nb.3 seeking to quash the proceedings in S.C.No. 137 of 2Ol1 on the tile of the II Additional District anci Sessions Judgc cum IAdditional Family Court at Medchal, Medchal Malkalgiri Disrrict, lor the offence under Section 304-8 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, the IPC')

Heard Mr. C. Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State. In spite of service of notice, respondent No.2 has not chosen to enter appearance.

2

t' l l

t! I ;l 6 FIr

Learned counsel ior the pelitioner submitted 1f at ar:cusecl Nos.4 to6 had filed C11.M.P.Nos.354 of 2011 and 11 rl 11013 seekirrg discl'rarge and the learned Sessions Judge dis eissecl t tre said applications on 06.08.2012. Aggrieved by thc^s;i I ordcr, zrccused Nos.4 to 6 approached this Cour[ by hling Crl.R^o No. 1625 ol 2Ol2 and this Court allou.ed the said revision case and^c; ;ch:rrged them i t-t S.C.No. 137 ol 20 11 on the file of the III Addit, nal Dist ric t and Sessions Judge {FTC) Ranga Reddy District at^L.B.f agar. Hr: furthcr submitted that thc very same allegations have^bc: r lcvelled againsl the potitioner. By virtue of allowing Crl.R.C.Nc. .52J oi 2OI) irt respcct ol accused Nos.4 to 6, the continuation^I the proceedrngs against the petilioner is a clear abuse of^{the process} rf lar.v-

Lcarnecl Assistant Public Prosecutor did^nol disputc the saicl submissions.

Taking into consideration the above said^{s -r} rmissions and in view of the orders passed in Crl.R.C.No.162!, of 2012, datcd 07 .O1.2O25, this Court hnds it to be a fit^{case to e>} :rcise^{jurisdictior-r} under Section 528 of^{the BNSSto quashtheproc()} dings against Lhe petitioner herein.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is e llowed and the proceedings in S.C.No.137 of 201 I on the hle cf the ll Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-I Additional 'amily Court at -',

3

I I I I i i

I ,

Medchal, Medchal Malkajgiri District, against the petitioner/ accuscd

No.3, are hereby quashed.

Miscellaneous applications, pending rf any, shall stand closed

Sd/. A, JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

.1 The llAddl. District and Sessions Judge-cum lAddl. Family Court. l,4edchal, IVedchal lt/alkajgiri District

The Vl ttrletropolitan Magistrate, l/edch a l-Cyberabad

The Station House Officer, Alwal P.S., Cyberabad

4 One CC to SRl. C SHARAN REDDY Advocate IOPUC]

Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court at Hyderabad (OUT)

Two CD Copies

(Along with a copy of Order in Crl.R.C No. 1625 of 2012 dated 07 01 2025) VSM 4-

HIGH COURT

DATED:1010212026

ORDER

TTII: ,t,
t or<br>,.,
a 0 5 i'r 2026
)
t
t
.oA:it l

CRLP.No.17403 of 2025

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION

^1Iut"

1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1625 OF 2oL2

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 40 I of the Code ol Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') bl the petitioners accused Nos.4 to 6 assailing tl-re order^<1atec1 06.O8.2012 in Crl.M.P.No.354 of 2011 and Crl.M.P.No.7 of²⁰¹³ in SC No. 137 of 2011 on the file of the learned III^Additional District and Sessions Judge^(FTC), Ranga Reddy District^at L.B.Nagar (hereinafter referred as'the learued trial^Court')

Heard Mr.C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for^the petitioners and Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing lor respondent No.2-State. Perused the^materrals available on record

The brief facts of the case are that orr^31.03.2010 respondent No. 1 / complainant lodged a complaint^agarnstthe petitioners and others stating that marriage of his^daughter (Vattakuri Poorna Ganga Kalavathi-deceased) was^performed with accused No. 1 in the month of May, 2005 and^at the^{time of} marriage they gave Rs.2 laksh towards dowry,^{2Yz acres of land} and 3O tulas gold and net cash of Rs.1,O0,00O/-^towards

?_

household articles. During their conjugal life ,i t:y blessed with two chiidren. Soon alter birth of first chilcl ac r r sred are ttsed to harass the ddccasecl lor additional dowry. On 30.O.1.2010 accused No.5 inlormed to the complainant that I is ctaugtrter has commrttec-l suiciclr: b.r' hanging ancl died at ll lj0 [-rour-s. On knowrng the s.rrnc, the complainant and othr,r; re'ached there and four-rcl blceclins in jury at the forehead ol 1r s daughter and blacken injurics :rt her hancls and legs. Basin5, ;t the saict facts, the present crinte is re gisterecl lor the offenr;e ur L, .r:r Section 304 B of IPC

Learnecl counsel for the petitioners subrn i sr that the trial Court or-rght to irave seen that lhe petitioners :rr: not thr: famity members of ac't:irsecl No. 1 ancl they have absolLrtr i-v no role in the death of the dcceased. He further submits rlr .1. there was no material avaiial;lc on record to show that tht petitione:rs had subjectecl the rlr,,ccased to crueltv and harassmt I 1 in connection rvith dowry, soor-L before her death; that the trirr Court failed to see that the allegations made against the petitior ers are general, vague and such allegations if investlgated fur her would not withstand the scrutiny of law. Hence, he ser I s to allow this Criminal Revision Case

.)

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor^{submitsthat the} matter requires to be tried and only upon^{conclusion of a full-} flectged trial, the truth comes to^{light. Therefore,he seeksto} drsmiss thrs Criminal Revision Case.

Perusecl thc materials available on record

As per the record, petitioner No.4 is the^{sister-in-law' of the} deceased, accused No.5 is^{the elder father-in law of the deceased} and accused No.6 is the elder mother-in-law^{of the deceased}

B. Having regard to the submissions of^{both the Iearned} counsel and relying on the decisions^{passed by the Hon'blc} Supreme Court in Kahkashan^Kausar @^{Sonam and Others Vs.} State of Bihar and Othersl, Dara Lakshmi^{Narayana and} Others Vs. State of Telangana^{and another2 and Geeta} Mehrotra and another Vs. State^{of UttarPradeshand} another3, this Court is of the^{opinion that general aliegationsare} leveled against the^{petitioners herein and no specificand distinct} allegations are made--out against them.^{In the absence of any} speciflc role attributed to the^{petitioneisherein itwouldbe} unjust if they are forced^{to go through the tribulationsof the}

1 2022 Lawsurt (SC) 149

r 2024 SCC OnLIne SC 3682

'iror:1^{9 s.c.r..6+ t}

4

trial. Therefore, this Court is inclined to :111, rv the Criminal Petition by quashing the proceedings in jo far as the petitioners/accr-rscd Nos.4 to 6 are concerneci. , s.c.N,:. r37 of 20 1 I o. the file of the learnecl IIi Additional Dis, ict ar-rcl Sessio.s Judge iFTC). R;,rrq.-r Retldl Drsrrir.t , L.B.Nagar.

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is i llowed

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, sh: I stand closed

Date: 07.01.2025 pld

JUSTICE I;, Y. VENUGOPAL