Rajashekar Reddy Lankela Vs The State of Telangana and… — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2026)

Rajashekar Reddy Lankela Vs The State of Telangana and… — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal Petition disposed of by dispensing with the petitioner/Accused No.1's presence before the trial Court, conditional on his being represented by counsel on every date of hearing and his appearance whenever required during trial; the prayer to quash C.C.No.1464 of 2021 was not granted; miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.1464 of 2021 (out of FIR No.149 of 2021, PS Mudigonda) against the petitioner/Accused No.1 for offences under Sections 498-A and 507 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. +1 more

Court's answer

On a perusal of the complaint and the statement of LW-1, the Court found specific allegations against the petitioner/Accused No.1.

Ratio / Principle

The specific allegations include that the petitioner never took care of the complainant, she was not taken to her in-laws' house, she was left at his relatives' house for two months, and when she asked to be taken to his parents' house he left her at her parental home and began demanding dowry to take her back to the matrimonial home, besides abusing and harassing her physically and mentally.

Key takeaways

The complaint further alleges that after she conceived the harassment increased for want of additional dowry, and that on 08.06.2021 at about 11:17 p.m. her husband abused her, beat her and threw her out of the house for want of additional dowry, specific dates being mentioned in the complaint.ratio¶49
Since there are specific allegations against the petitioner, the Court held that the veracity of the statement of the witnesses and the truth or otherwise of the allegations need to be tested during the course of trial.ratio¶49
Deeming it appropriate, the Court dispensed with the presence of the petitioner before the trial Court, provided he is represented by counsel before the trial Court on every date of hearing and appears before it whenever his presence is required during the course of trial.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition (S.482 Cr.P.C.) by Accused No.1, the husband, seeking quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.1464 of 2021 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Khammam (out of FIR No.149 of 2021, P.S. Mudigonda) for offences under Ss.498-A and 507 IPC and Ss.3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, laid on the complaint of his wife (Respondent No.2/de facto complainant). Perusing the complaint and the statement of LW-1, the Court found specific allegations - neglect, failure to take her to the in-laws' house, two months' stay at his relatives' house, dowry demands to take her back to the matrimonial home, physical and mental abuse, heightened harassment after conception, and a dated incident on 08.06.2021 (about 11:17 p.m.) of abuse, beating and eviction for want of additional dowry. Held, the veracity of the witnesses' statements and the truth of the allegations must be tested at trial; the petition was disposed of dispensing with the accused's presence before the trial Court, provided counsel represents him on every date of hearing and he appears whenever his presence is required during trial. Miscellaneous petitions stand closed. (Tirumala Devi Eada, J., 11-02-2026)

13444 |

t

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5945 OF 2021

Between:

Ra.jashekar Reddy Lankela, S/o. Lankela Laxmareddy, Aged about 32 years, Occ Farmer, R/o. H.No. 9-43, Patha Gudibanda, Kodada Mandalam, Gudrbanda, Suryapet, Telangana- 508238.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1

AND

The State of Telangana and another, through Public Prosecutor, High Court of Hyderabad, through Mudigonda Police Station, Khammam, Telangana.

Sushma Lankela, Wio. Lankela Rajashekar Reddy, Aged about 23 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. Kamalapuram Village, Kodada Mandalam,Gudibanda, Suryapet, Telangana - 508238

...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C 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 and quash the C.C No. 1464 of 2021 on the file of the ll Addl. Judicial First Class [Vlagistrate, at Khammam, u/Sec. 4984, 507 of IPC and 3 and 4 OF DP Act, in FIR No 149 of 2021 by PS Mudigonda against the Petitioner / Accused No.1.

l.A. NO: 1OF 2021

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in C.C No. 1464 of 2021 on the file of the ll Addl. Judicial First Class lvlagistrate, at Khammam, u/Sec. 4984, 507 of IPC and 3 and 4 OF DP Act, in FIR No 149 of 2021 by PS Mudigonda, including

i t

the appearance of the petitioners / Accused No.2 and l3 reniing disposal of the above criminal petition.

This^petition coming on for hearing, upon perusrr J the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition and upon hearing the argur ents of Sri S udarsha n ltrlalugari, Advocate for the petitioner, Sri Arun Kumar L r ddla, Additionat Pubtic Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. j and tone appearedfor the Respondent No. 2

The Court made the following: ORDER

b

---7

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5945 OF 2021

DATE:1142-2026

Between:

Rajashekar Reddy Lankela

Petitioner

And

The State of Telangana,

Through Public Prosecutor, HiSh^Court of^Hyderabad, through Mudigonda Police Station, Khammam, Telangana and another

... Respondents

ORDER:

This Criminal Petitions are filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.1464 ot 2021 on the file of learned ll Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Khammam, registered for the offences under Sections 498-4 and 507 of lndian Penal Code, 1860 (for short'lPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short'DP Act')

Heard Sri Sudarshan Malugari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arun Kumar Doddla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for

respondent No.1-State

6

2

E I'D,J (lrl.P.No 5945 2021

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted ilr; t there are no specific incidents of harassment alleged against the 1r, ,litis6s1 6.r.1., and that the present complaint has been filed only as ; n afterthought, when the petitioner herein had filed a petition for restitr :ion of conjugal rights. The present compraint has been rodged sorer, to harass the petitioner. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceerri rgs against the petitioner.

Despite notice being sent to the respondent No i, the same was refused. Hence, it is deemed to have been served.

Learned Additionar^pubric prosecutor has pointe 1 out that there are specific allegations against the petitioner herein ,t at he harassed the de facto comprainant. He, therefore, prayed to disrr ss the petition.

6 Perused the record.

A perusal of the complaint and the statement ,> LW1 discloses specific allegations against the petitioner herein. rt i:; aileged that he never took care of her, that she was not even taker to her in-laws, house, and that she was reft at his reratives' house for wo months. rt is further alleged that, when she requested him to take [r, .r to his parents, house, he left her at her parental home and started rl rmanding dowry to take her back to the matrimoniar home. He is ars, aileged to have II abused and harassed her both physically and me I ally. When she

F] fI),J Crt.P,No 5915²⁰²¹

3

conceived,^{the harassmentgot increased for want of additional dowry'} Specific^{dates have been mentioned in the complaint' and it is alleged} that on 08.06.2021^{at about'l 1:17 p'm'' her husband abused her' beat} her, and threw^{her out of the housefor want of additional dowry' Thus'} when there^{are specific allegations against the petitioner herein'the} veracity^{of the statement of the witnesses and the truth or otherwise of} the allegations^{need to be tested during the course of trial' Hence'this} Court deems^{it appropriateto dispense with the presence of the} petitioner before^{the trial Court'}

Accordingly,^{this Criminal Petition is disposed of dispensing with} the^{presence of the petitioner beforethe trial court provided that he is} represented^{by a counsel before the trial court on every date of} hearing^{and shall appear before the trial court whenever his presence} is required^{duringthe course of trial'}

Miscellaneous^{Petitions pending, if any' shall stand closed'}

SD/. C.DEEPIKA ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//
SE TION OFFICER
1

To,

1

The ll Additional^{Judicial First Class Magistrate at Khammam}

2 The Station^{House Officer'tvludigondaPolice Station' Khammam District} 3 Two CCs^{to the PublicProsecutor'HighCourt for the State of Telangana at} Hyderabad [OUT]

4 One CC^{to Sri Sudarshan Malugari' Advocate [OPUC]}

5 Two CD^CoPies

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1110212026

ORDER

CRLP.No.5945 of 2021

I4
.,n I q j
)C
.a'
t

DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION

@
0')
a. b