Bolla Venkata Ramana Rao Vs Bolla Mallika Rajyam — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2026)

Bolla Venkata Ramana Rao Vs Bolla Mallika Rajyam — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Proceedings against petitioner No.2/accused No.2 in C.C.No.4036 of 2020 quashed as abuse of process of law; against petitioner No.1, trial to continue with dispensation of personal appearance subject to advocate representation on every hearing date and presence whenever specifically required; Trial Court directed to dispose of C.C.No.4036 of 2020 expeditiously; miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings against petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.4036 of 2020 (Sections 498(A), 323, 506 IPC; Sections 3 & 4, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961) should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as an abuse of the process of law. +1 more

Court's answer

Proceedings against petitioner No.2/accused No.2 in C.C.No.4036 of 2020 are quashed as an abuse of the process of law: the complaint discloses no specific role or incidents of harassment attributable to her (she is only said to have supported petitioner No.1), applying the principle in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana that the complaint/FIR must reveal specific details of time, date, place or manner of the alleged harassment.

Ratio / Principle

Proceedings against petitioner No.1 (husband) are not quashed; since specific allegations of dowry demand and harassment are made against him, the truth or otherwise can be culled out only after a full-fledged trial.

Key takeaways

Personal appearance of petitioner No.1 before the Trial Court is dispensed with, on conditions that he is represented through an Advocate on every date of hearing and remains present whenever his presence is specifically required during trial.ratio¶47
The Trial Court is directed to dispose of C.C.No.4036 of 2020 as expeditiously as possible, in view of the High Court's circular instructions to prioritize cases pending for more than five years.obiter¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing C.C.No.4036 of 2020 on the file of the V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad cum V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar (Sections 498(A), 323, 506 IPC; Sections 3 & 4, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961) — The complaint contained no specific allegation of any incident or overt act of harassment against petitioner No.2 (accused No.2), who was merely stated to have supported petitioner No.1; applying the Apex Court ruling in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana (the FIR/complaint should reveal specific details as to the time, date, place or manner of the alleged harassment, and vague allegations warrant quashing), proceedings against petitioner No.2 were quashed as an abuse of the process of law — Against petitioner No.1 (husband), specific allegations stood: receipt of Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry at marriage, subsequent demand for additional dowry, alcoholism, merciless beatings, severe assault in November 2019 requiring admission in Yashoda Hospital, and a threat to kill the defacto complainant if she sought divorce; his guilt could be culled out only in a full-fledged trial, so proceedings against him were not quashed — His personal appearance before the Trial Court was dispensed with, subject to representation through an Advocate on every date of hearing and presence whenever specifically required during trial — Trial Court directed to dispose of C.C.No.4036 of 2020 as expeditiously as possible in view of circular instructions prioritising cases pending over five years — Criminal Petition disposed of accordingly; miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed.

134141

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELAT{GANA AT HYDERABAD

MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 902 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

Bolla Venkata Ramana Rao, S/o. Late Narahari Rao, Age: 45 years, Occ: Business, Caste: Karanam, R/o.Flat No.205, Sai Towers, MG Colony, Nalgonda District.

Bolla Sandya Rani, Wo. Late Narahari Rao, Age: 65 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o. 6{-138, Hanuman Nagar Colony, Nalgonda Town and District 508 001

...Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 & 2

AND

Bolla Mallika Rajyam, Wo Ramana Rao, Aged 40 years, OE:c: Household, R/o H.No. 1-5-55, Jayadurgalaxmi Nilayam, Opp: Masqati Dairy Products, Near Krishnaveni Talent School, New Maruthi Nagar, Chaitanyapuri, Hyderabad

...Respondent No.llComplainant

The State of Telangana State, Rep by its Public Prosecttor, High Court buildings, Hyderabad.

petition under section 482 ofcr.p.c praying ,r", ,r*":,:c"#rT::ff-IT the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to proceedings in C.C.NO. 4O%|2O2O on the file of V Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad cum V Addl. Junior Civil Judge, RR District at LB Nagar for offenses under Sec. 4984, 323 and 506 of IPC Sec. 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and quash the same as illegal.

l.A NO: 2 OF 2021

Petition under Section $2 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. 403612020 on the file of V Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad cum V Addl.Junior Civil Judge, RR District at LB Nagar for offences under Sec. 498A, 323 and 506 of IPC Sec. 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, pending disposal of Criminal petition.

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Kiran Palakurthi, Advocate for the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, leamed Addilional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.2 and None appeared for the Respondent No.1.

The Court made the following: ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF}

AT HYDERABAD

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

Between:

Bolla Venkata Ramana^{Rao & another.}

... Petitioners/Accused^{Nos. 1} &2

AND

Bolla Mallika Rajyam &^another.

Respondents

This Criminal Petition^{is filed under Section 482 of T'heCode} of Criminal Procedure^{(for short, 'Cr.P.C.') seeking to quash the} proceedings against the^{petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2in} C.C.No.4036 of^{2O2O, on the file of the learned V Additional} Metropolitan Magistrate,^{Cyberabad +um- V Additional JuniorCivil} Judge, Ranga Reddy^{District at L.B.Nagar, registered for the} offences^{punishableunder Sections498(A), 323 and 506 of IPC and} Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry^{ProhibitionAct, 1961.}

Heard Sri Kiran Palakurthi,^{learnedcounsel for the} petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 as^well as^{Sri JitenderRao}

\

2

EID)

Veeramalla, the learned Additional public prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.2-State

Leamed petitioners' counsel submifted that the petitioners are facing faft;e allegations and that petitioner No.2 is an old lady of 65 years and is suffering a lot due to this false complaint and long pendency of the mafter. He further submitted that even according to the complaint, there are no allegations against petitioner No.2 and the allegatjons leveled against petitioner No.1 are false. He further submitted that ontinuation of proceedings against the petitioners would be irbuse of prooess of law and hence prayed to guash the proceedings against the petitioners.

The counsel on record for respondent No.2 has not appeared

on the pasl several occasions.

The learned Additional^public prosecutor has submifted that there are no specific allegations against petitioner No.2 but, however, petitioner No.1, wtro is the husband of the defacto complainant, is alleged to be an alcoholic and that he used to beat the defacto complainant and used to harass her both mentally and physically fc,r want of additional dowry and further threatened that he wtould kill her if she gives divorce to him. The only allegation against

3

ETD) Crl.P.No.9:2-Xn7

petitioner No.2 is that she too used to support^petitioner No.l/accused No.1 in harassing the defacto complainant.

6. Perused the record

The contents of the complaint do not disclose any specific^role of petitioner No.2 in alleged hqrassment of^{defacto complainant.} The contents of the complaint^point out that^{petitionerNo.1 has} received an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards^{dowry at the time of} marriage. After marriage, he started demanding^{for additional} dowry. Petitioner No.l is stated to be^{alcoholicand used to beat the} defacto complainant mercilessly day in and day out^{and in November} 2019, he beat the defacto complainant^{severely, as a resultof which} she fell sick and was admitted in Yashoda^{Hospital.Thus, there are} specific allegations of harassment against^{petitioner No.1 while there} are no such incidents of harassment^{reportedagainst petitioner} No.2, but for stating that she used to^{support petitionerNo.1 in} harassing the de facto complainant.

ln view of the law laid down by^{the Apex Court in Dara} Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana,^{continuation of} proceedings against petitioner No.2 would be an abuse of^processof law. lt was held in the said case that^" the^{FIR should reveal the} spcific detaits as fo the time, date,^{place or manner in which the}

4

T'DJ

alleged harassment has occurred. As the FIR tacks concrete and precise eilegations, the Apex Court set aside the order of the tial Couft ancl has allowed the quash petition". Applying the above said principle to the case on hand, the proceedings against petitioner No.2/acctrsed No.2 are hereby quashed. As far as petitioner No.1 is concemerl, the truth or ottrerwise in the allegations leveled against him can be culled out only after a full-fledged trial. Therefore, 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 shall be present before the Trial Court whenever his presence is specifically required during the course of trial. Since the subject GC pertains lo 2O2O, in view of the circular instructions issued by the High court from time to time to prioritize disposal ol'cases pending for more than five years, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of C.C.No.4036 of 2020 as expeditiously as possible.

With the above observations, the Criminal petition is disposed of accordingly

'10. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

Sd/. B. REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

To,

SECTION OFFICER

tional Junior Civil Judge

1 The V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate cum Kanga h:eddy District at LB Nagar.

I

2' The Station House Officer, Saroornagar WPS police Station, Rachakonda District.

3' Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad lourl

One CC to Sri Kiran patakurthi, Advocate tOpUCl

Two CD Copies

GNK/DL

(Y

HIGH COURT ti .0210212026

\ \

n =i

CRLP.No.902 of 2021

t THE S T4
(-)
2 B tE| 2026

DISPOSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION

aJ,
co?'
4-
K'*'