Medishetti Raj Kumar and 4 others Vs The State of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2026)

Medishetti Raj Kumar and 4 others Vs The State of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal Petition disposed of accordingly: (i) proceedings against petitioner Nos.2 to 5 (accused Nos.2 to 5) in C.C.No.2984 of 2020 quashed as abuse of process; (ii) for petitioner No.1, personal appearance before the trial court dispensed with subject to representation through an advocate on every date of hearing and presence whenever specifically required during trial; (iii) trial court directed to dispose of C.C.No.2984 of 2020 expeditiously; (iv) miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings against petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5 in C.C.No.2984 of 2020 (V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal), for offences under Sections 498(A) & 506 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. +1 more

Court's answer

The contents of the complaint and the recitals of the charge sheet point out specific allegations against accused No.1 (petitioner No.1) with regard to harassment for additional dowry; hence the proceedings against petitioner No.1 were not quashed.

Ratio / Principle

Apart from bald allegations, there are no specific incidents of harassment alleged against petitioner Nos.2 to 5; they reside separately from petitioner No.1 and the de facto complainant, and it was petitioner No.1 who harassed the defacto complainant for want of Rs.15,00,000/- to establish his real estate business.

Key takeaways

Since there are no specific allegations against petitioner Nos.2 to 5, continuation of proceedings against them would be an abuse of process of law; accordingly, the proceedings against petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are hereby quashed.ratio¶51
So far as petitioner No.1 is concerned, it is deemed appropriate to dispense with his appearance before the trial court, provided he is represented through an advocate on every date of hearing and shall be present before the trial court whenever his presence is specifically required during the course of trial.ratio¶51
Since the subject C.C. pertains to 2020, in view of the circular instructions issued by the High Court from time to time to prioritise disposal of cases pending for more than five years, the trial court is directed to dispose of C.C.No.2984 of 2020 as expeditiously as possible.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quash of C.C.No.2984 of 2020 (V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal) charging accused Nos.1 to 5 under Sections 498(A) & 506 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Held: (i) the complaint and charge sheet contain specific allegations of dowry harassment against accused No.1 (husband), who allegedly sustained business loss and demanded Rs.15,00,000/- towards additional dowry, harassing the defacto complainant physically and mentally; (ii) accused Nos.2 to 5 (in-laws) live separately — the couple was sent to L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad soon after marriage — and only bald allegations without any specific incidents are made against them; applying the principle in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana (that the FIR must reveal specifics as to time, date, place or manner of alleged harassment), continuation of proceedings against them would be an abuse of process of law, and the proceedings against petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are quashed; (iii) for petitioner No.1, appearance before the trial court is dispensed with, subject to his being represented by an advocate on every date of hearing and his presence whenever specifically required during trial; (iv) as the case pends from 2020, the trial court is directed to dispose of C.C.No.2984 of 2020 expeditiously per High Court circular instructions prioritising cases over five years old. Petition disposed of accordingly; miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed.

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

IVONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE^{TIRUMALADEVI EADA}

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 259 OF²⁰²¹

Between

Medishetti Raj Kumar, S/o. Late^{N/allaiah aged35 years, Occ. Real Estate} Agent R/o. H No. 5-7614, Krishna^{Colony, Srirampur[Vlancherial District}

lMedishetti tVlallamma @ Mallakka,^{Wo. Late Nlallaiah, aged 64 years, Occ.} House wife Aged 43^years, Occ. Agriculture^{R/o. H No. 5-7614, Krishna} Colony, Srirampur, fVlancherial^District

3, tVledishetti Venkateshwarlu, S/o. Late^{tt/allaiah Aged 38 years, Occ.Singareni} employee R/o. H No. 5-7614, Krishna^{Colony, Srirampur,fMancherial District}

Karre Swapna, W/o. Raju Aged^{30 years, Occ. House wife,R/o. H No.6-16/1} Kunaram Village, Kalva Srirampur,^{PeddapalliDistrict}

Karre Raju, S/o. Rajesham,^aged 34^{years Occ. Bricks Business,R/o H No.} 6-16/1 Kunaram Village, Kalva^{Srirampur, PeddapalliDistrict}

.....PETITIONERS/ACCUSED^{NO 1 TO 5}

AND

The State of Telanana and another,^{Rep. by Public Prosecutor High Court at} Hyderabad for the State of Telangana

Medishetti Vani, Wo. Raj Kumar^{Aged 30 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o H No.} 7-1-360/6, Padmakshi Colony Hanamkonda,^{Warangal Urban District}

.....RESPON DENTS/COMPLAI^NANT

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^{praying that in the circumstances} stated in the [t/emorandum of Grounds^{of Criminal Petition, the High Court may} be pleased to QUASH the^{proceedings CC No. 2984 OF 2020 on the file of V} Additional Judicial First Class^{Magistrateat Warangalagainst the petitioners/} accused no. 1 to⁵

A. NO: 1 OF 202

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^{praying that in the circumstances} stated in the [Vlemorandum^{of Groundsof Criminal Petition, the High Courtmay} be pleased to STAY all further^{proceedings in CC No. 2984 l202Oonthe file of V} Additional Judicial First Class^{Magistrate at Warangal includingthe appearance} of the petitioners/ accused^{1 to 5, pending disposal of the above criminalpetition,}

'. jtli. r " i:-r,'.:. '

This Pe':ition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri AJAY KUIUAR IMADISETTY, Advocate for the Petitioners and the SRl. JIIHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of sRl KA{]ARA RAIVESH REDDY, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2

The Court mace the following: ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA}

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE^{TIRUMALA DEVI EADA}

CRIMINAL PETITION No.259 ot^2O21

DATE OF ORDER:-02.02.2026

Between:

Ivledishetti Raj Kumar & 4 others

... Petitioners/Accused Nos.'l^{to 5}

AND

The State of Telangana rep. by its Public Prosecutor^{& another.}

...Respondents

ORDER

This Criminal Petition^{is filed under Section482 of TheCode} of Criminal Procedure^{(for short, 'Cr.P.C.')seekingto quash the} proceedings against the^{petitioners/accusedNos.1 to 5in} C.C.No.2984 ol 2020,^{on the file of the learned V AdditionalJudicial} Magistrate of First Class,^{Warangal, registeredfor the offences} punishable under Sections 498(A)^{and 506 of IPC and Sections3 &} 4 of Dowry Prohibition^{Act, 1961.}

Heard Sri M.Ajay^{Kumar, learned counsel for the} petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5, Sri^{Jitender Rao Veeramalla, the} learned Additional^{PublicProsecutorappearing for the respondent} No.1-State and Sri^{KasaraRameshReddy, learned counsel} appearing for the respondent^No.2.

\

2

ETDJ

Learned petitioners' counsel submits that petitioner No.1 and the defa<fo complainant used to reside separately from other family members; at Hyderabad and that petitioner Nos.2 to 5 never harassed the defacto complainant at any point of time for demand of additional dowry. He further submitted that there are no specific allegations against the petltioners herein and that without there being any incidents of harassment reported against the petitioners herein, continuation of proceedings against them would be an abuse of process cf law. He therefore prayed to quash the proceedings against ttre petitioners herein.

The learned Additional Public^prosecutor has submitted that there are incidents of harassment and that there are specific allegations against accused No.1 that he harassed the defacto complainant for want of additional dowry for establishing his business. Many a times, counseling has been conducted but in vain. He therefr>re prayed to pass appropriate orders.

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has submitted that there are specific allegations that all the family members, including the husband of the defacto complainant, harassed the defacto crtmplainant for want of additional dowry and that they all beat her ernd threatened her that they wourd kiil her if she does not bring addi:ional dowry. He therefore prayed to dismiss the petition.

3

f,ID,J

Perused the^record.

7 . The contents of^{the complaintand the recitals of charge sheet} point out specific allegations^{against accused No'1 with regard to} harassment^{for additional dowry' lt is alleged that accusedNo'1 i'e''} the^{petitioner No.1 herein sustained loss in businessand thus' he} demanded^{an amount of Rs'15,00,0001 towards additionaldowry} and used to^{harass the defacto complainant physically and mentally} for the same^{so thathe can get settled in real estate business'}

As far as the^{other familymembers i'e} '^{petitionerNos'2 to 5} are concerned,^{the allegation is that they too used to harassher} physically and mentally^{and that they threatened her' Admittedly'} the residence^{of petitionerNos 2 to 5 is different from that of the} residence^{of petitionerNo.1 and the} de facto complainant'^The contents of^{the complaintitself wouldreveal that soonafter marriage'} they were^{sentby theirin-laws to L'B'Nagar' Hyderabad'But for the} bald allegations^{of harassmentagainst petitioner Nos'2 to 5' there} are no specific^{incidentsof harassment allegedagainst them' lt is} the^{petitioner No.1whoused to harassthe defacto complainant for} want of Rs.15,00,000/-^{to establish his real estatebusiness'}

4

EIO,]

1. Tlre principle laid down by the Apex Court in Dara Lakshmi

Narayan'a v. State of Telanganal applies squarely to the case on hand. lt was held in the said case that^,, the FIR should reveal the specific JefarTs as to the time, date, place or manner in which the alleged narassment has occuned. As the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations, the Apex Couft set aside the order of the tiat Court and has allowed the quash petition". When there are no specific zrllegations against petitioner Nos.2 to 5 herein, continuation of proceedings against them would be an abuse of process of law. In view of the above held discussion and in the light of the above cited dec;ision, the proceedings against petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are herebyquashed. As far as petitioner No.1 is concerned, it is deemed appropriate to dispense with his appearance before the Trial Court provided that he is represented through an Advocate on every date of hearing and that he shafi be present before the Triar court whenever his presence is specifically required during the course of trial. sinr:e the subject cc pertains to 2020, in view of the circurar instructions issued by the High court from time to time to prioritize disposal .f cases pending for more than five years, the Triar court is directed lo dispose of C.C.No.29g4 ot ZO2O as expeditiously as

possible.

,.t''"

--"-

' lzozsy^{s scr: z:s}

.,/

5

ETD,I Crl.P.No.259_2021

,.i'

With the above observations, the Criminal Petition^is disposed

of accordingly

Miscellaneous petitions^pending, if any, shall stand closed

//TRUE COPY//

Sd/- K.BHAVANI^SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6

SECTION OFFICER

. t ,r,, " ri

To,

The V Additional^{Judicial First Class li/agistrate.at Warangal District}

, Z. tne Station^{HouseOfficer, WPS Warang-al City Warangal. Dlstrict}

i 5, On. CC 6 SRt. AJAY KUIMAR NIADISETTY Advocate [OP_UC] 4. Two CCs to Public^{Prosecutor,High Court for the State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad tOUTI

Orie CC to SRt^{KASARA RAIVIESH REDDY,Advocate[OPUC]}

Two CD CoPies

&,

HIGH COURT

DATED:0210212026

.tHE s
t
oo
0 3 :l lq 7rt2f,
* *

ORDER

CRLP.No.259^{<tf 2021}

DISPOSING TI{E CRIMINAL^PETITION (q"-.Jks.rA-t ---r-"-----. z t f:-!t-e