Vidiyala Chandra Mohan Vs The Public Prosecutor… — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2026)

Vidiyala Chandra Mohan Vs The Public Prosecutor… — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal Petition allowed; proceedings against the petitioner/Accused No.3 in C.C.No.1795 of 2024 on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-III Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class at Rangareddy quashed; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.1795 of 2024 (offences under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act) against the petitioner/Accused No.3 ought to be quashed, there being no specific allegations against him.

Court's answer

On perusal of the complaint and the final report there are no specific allegations levelled against the petitioner/Accused No.3; the only allegation made against him is that Accused No.1 sent flight tickets to respondent No.2 and her daughter for Norway, Europe, and cancelled the said flight tickets after listening to the words of the petitioner.

Ratio / Principle

The said allegations do not attract the ingredients of the offence under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act against the petitioner/Accused No.3.

Key takeaways

Following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ch.Bhajan Lal and Geddam Jhansi, it is a fit case to invoke the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/Accused No.3.ratio¶61

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quash petition allowed - no specific allegations against relative of principal accused. Telangana High Court (J. Sreenivas Rao, J.), by order dated 07.01.2026 in Crl.P. No.719 of 2025 filed under Section 528 of BNSS, quashed the proceedings in C.C.No.1795 of 2024 (S. 498-A IPC; Ss. 3 & 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961; Saroornagar P.S., Rachakonda District) pending before the III Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-III Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rangareddy, against Vidiyala Chandra Mohan (Accused No.3). Respondent No.2, the de-facto complainant, though personally served with notice (RPAD delivered 11.02.2025) pursuant to the Court's order dated 29.01.2025, did not appear. Perusing the complaint and final report, the Court found no specific allegations against the petitioner: the sole allegation was that Accused No.1 sent flight tickets to respondent No.2 and her daughter for Norway, Europe, but cancelled them after listening to the petitioner's words. Holding that such allegations do not attract the ingredients of S.498-A IPC or Ss.3 & 4 DP Act, and relying on the Bhajan Lal categories of quashable cases and on Geddam Jhansi v. State of Telangana (omnibus, general allegations against relatives bereft of specific overt acts amounting to abuse of process), the Court invoked Section 482 Cr.P.C., quashed the proceedings against Accused No.3, and closed pending miscellaneous applications.

[³³⁰³ ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 719 OF 2025

Between:

Vidiyala Chandra Mohan, S/o Late Ramchandar Rao, age 54 years, Occ Business, R/o H.No. 51l2RT, Prakashnagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad

. Petition e r/Accused No.3

AND

1 The Public ProSecutor (Telangana), The Honble High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad, Telangana.

. .. Res p o n de nURes pon d e n t

2 Revoori Sai Sree, Wo Revoori Rahul, Aged about. 30 years, Occ. House wife, R/o Plot no 56, Kurmalguda road, lVlallapur, Balapur Ranga Reddy, District, Hyderabad

.,.RespondenUDe-facto Complainant

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS prayrng that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the Crime in CC.No.1795 of 2024 for the offences punishable U/s 498 A of IPC and 3,4 of DP Act, Saroornagar WPS. Rachakonda District, before the lll Additional Junror Civil Judge, At Rangareddy against the Petitibner/Accused No. 3.

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025

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 grant interim stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the Petitioner in CC.No.179512024, on the file of the lll Addl Junior Civil Judge, at Rangareddy, pending disposal of the main Crimrnal Petition in the interest of justice.

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^{perusing he l\4emorandumof} Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon^{hearingthe argunrtrts of Sri S Lakshmi} Kanth, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri^{[t/ VivekanandaIf : idy, AssrstantPublic} Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent^No.1 and^{nor: appeared for the} Respondent No.2.

The Court made the following: ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANCANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7l9 of 2025 Date: 07.01.2026

Between:

Vidiyala Chandra Mohan

Petitioner

AND

The Pubiic Prosecutor, The High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and another.

Respondents

ORDER

This Criminal Petition has been hled bv the

petitioner/accused No.3, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1795 of 2024 on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-trIl Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class at Rangareddy, for the offences punishable under Section 498(A), of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short'lPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'DP Act')

2

i.

The case of the prosecution, in brief^{is that 1 ie marriage of} the de-facto complainant^{with Accused No.1rva,; ;olemnised on} 01.12.2019 At the time ol^{niariage, as per 1l: dcrnands ol} Accused No.1 and his family^members, her lrrt^{ents allegeclll'} gave Rs.2.00,000/- cash, 35 tulas of^{gold, 2} kgs^{c 1 silver arlicles,} housel'rold articles rvorth Rs.50,000/-, and^{R s 2,00,0001-} Adapaduchu Katnam to his sister,^{besides spendi: g about Rs.30} lakhs for the maniage. It is alleged that^{rccused No.l} misrepresented his employment at^{the time ol r rarriage.After} urarriage, the complainant was^{allegedly subjecttr to mental and} physicai cruelty. She accompanied Accused N,t I to^Dubaiin . October 2020, where she conceived but was allel :dly neglected. resulting tn terrnination of pregnancy, follor^^j rg rrhich^shc rehrraed to Hyderabad m January 2021. She again^joined Accused No. I in October 2021, conceived, and I ter^returnedto Hyderabad h January 2022,where she deliverel a female^child on25.06.2022. It is alleged that Accused No. 1 rnd his^family mcmbers expressed displeasure over the birth of a female^child and subjected^{the complainant} to^verbal abuse^a rd^harassment .-Fu(her, they^{allegedly demanded} transfer of^{li r} d^bearingPlot

No.62 at Sultanpura Village or its equivalent value as a condition to resume marital life and to attend the child's hrst bithday function. On her parents' refusal, the complainant and her parents were allegedly driven out of the matrimonial home. It is further alleged that Accused No.1 withheld financial suppod, confined and harassed the complainant, and that Accused Nos.2 to 4 instigated and threatened her and her parents, including by suggesting a second mariage for Accused No.1. Despite mediation by elders, the accused allegedly refused to accept the complainant and her child without lulfihnent of the said demands. Hence, she requested to take necessary action against "them.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the order, dated 29 .01 .2025 passed by this Court he sent personal notice to respondent No.2. by way of Registered Post Acknowledgment Due and the same was delivered on 11.02.2025 and he f,rled a Memo vide USR.No.20061 of 2025 on 24.02.2025. After perusal of the docket proceedings, it records that this Court recorded the above said submission made by the leamed counsel for the^petitioner and posted to 21.04.2025

I

4

Thereafter', the matter underwent two atlir ttrnmeuts^on ,11.12.2025 and 0(r.01.2025. In spite of ser' ce of^notice, respondent No.2 has not chosen erter ippearanct^{I'hcre lorc, tliis} C'ourt has nt, otlter option except to^procecdrvr I^{the lrlattcron}

mefl ts

Heard Mr.S.Lakshmikanth, Iearned cr L nsel lor thc petitioner lrrd Mr'.M.Vivekananda Redd.v, lc;r rted Assistant Public Prosccuior lilr lespondent No.l

Learned counsel for petitioner subnri ted tliat the petitioner, accused No.3 has not committed ant'^{, ,ffetrce} anci^he u'as lalscll rrnplicatcd in the present case on tlt, tround that he is a rnaternal uncle ol'accused No. l. He furthcr. s rbmits that the petitioner never harassed the respondent No.2, e'', n according to the allegatiilns made in the complaint or in thc f nal repofi, the ingredients to attract the offences punishable urrd: Sections 498A and Sections I and 4 of Dowry Prohibition^A( i are not made out against the petitioner. The only allegation lev c led against the petitioner is that he supported accused No.l. Helt :, contintration

n

J

of the proceedings agarnst the petitioner is a clear abuse ol the

process of law

Par ccrura, the lcarned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that whether the petitioner /accused No.i has committed the alleged off'ences or not has to be detennined only after a lult-fled-eed trial before the trial Court. The grounds raised by the leamed counsel for the petitioner involve disputed cluestions of fact, and basing on the same, petitioner/accused No.3 is not entitled to seek quashment of the proceedings

l. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respectivc parties and after perusal of the complaint as rvell as the final report, it reveals that there are no specific allegations Ievelled against the petitioner. The only allegation is rnade against him is that the accused No.l sent the flight tickets to rcspondent No.2 and her daughter for Norway, Europe, but after sometime accused No.1 has cancelled the said flight tickets on listening to the rvords of the petitioner. This Courl is of the considered view that the said allegations does not attract the

'x;'E

t)

ingrcclients lcr the cttence under^{Section498-.'\ ind Sections i} and 4 of D.P Act against the^p.:titioner

lt is perlinent to tncntiotl^{tha.t the lii"r} goveming the cxercisc ol inhererrt powers under^Section4l'- Cr.P.C. or the ertraordinary vrrit lurisdiction^{under Article 2: I} is 'uvell settled by thc decision in State of Har.t'una^{v. Ch.Bhaiu,} Ialr. rvhcrein the Ilon'ble Apcx Coutt illustratively^catalogur . categories of cases r'van'anting quashinent, strch^{as rvhen the I I} egations taken at face value do rlot constitute an^offencc, rre absurd or inherentll' rmprobable, are actuated by^malaf des. or where continuance of proceeding5 ''r'ould amount^{to a-)} rse ol process, "vhile^{cautioning that such power must be sparr} giy invoked to secu re the ends ofjustice.

It is reler.ant to mention thatinGeddam Jhw-si^v. State of Telanganu:. the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterate c the^principles that w'ere invoked to^quasl'r crirninal^{proceedingsunder Sections} 498-A, 506 IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of the Down'l rohibition Act,

l9(rl. and the Dou:estic Violence Act,2005. ir: so lar a:; thcy

' t99i Supp ( tI SLC lli

I loli SCC Onl.rn.'SC l6l

7

I t ii

e

related to the husband's aunt and cousin, as the allegations against them rvere found to be omnibus and general, berelt of specific oveft acts, resting rnerely on hearsay evidence. and rurther weakened by the fact that they resided separately lrom the matrimonial home. The Court held that dragging such distant relatives into criminal prosecution, in the absence of clear particulars of harassrnent or dowry demand, squarely attracted the Bhajan Lal principles, and permitting the proceedings to continue would be nothing but an abuse of the process of larv, though the trial against the principal accused the husband and mother-in-law was allowed to proceed in accordance with law.

For the foregoing reasons as well as the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ch.Bhajan Lal and Geddam Jhansi supra, this Courl is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to invoke the provisions of Section 482 of Cr.p.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.3

In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.3 in C.C.No.l795 of 2024 on the file of the lII Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-

8

III Additional Judiciat Magistrate^{First Class at Il ,ngareddl',are}

heleby^quashed

I'ending nrisc:llaneous applications, ii^an l,^{shall stand}

closed

SD/. S. I\ ALLIKARJUNA^RAO AS S FTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

brclott oFFtcER

To, 1. lll Additional^{Junior civilJudge-cum-lll AdditionalJudir;i rl vlagistrate of First} Class at RangareddY.

The lllAdditional^{lVletropolitan[/lagistrate, Cyberabacl rt L B Nagar}

fh" Station^{House Officer,Saroornagar WPS,Rachzrlcnda District}

+r*oCCstothePublicProsecutor,HighCourtforthelj]teofTelanganaat Hyderabad^(OUT)

One cC to SRI^{s LAKSHMI KANTH, Advocate[oPUC]}

g Two CD CoPies

ADK/psl

Yt-

HIGH COURT

DATED:071O112026

ORDER

CRLP.No.719 of 2025

lq"' 1l\f:i
(
':j
{s t c ,$
-!.,.
''(%
.k 4.
,!.'

ALLOWING THE CRLP

^t. c$e.to q Yk'-, aeS'"