Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1611 (TS)

Azharuddin Ahmed v. State of Telangana

2025-11-24

J.SREENIVAS RAO

body2025
ORDER : 1. This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.8014 of 2020 on the file of the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 4 98(A), 506 and 406 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short ‘DP Act’). 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief is that on 08.08.2019, the de-facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that her marriage with accused No.1 was solemnised on 26.11.2018. At the time of marriage, accused No.1 and the other accused allegedly demanded Rs.10 lakhs, 12 tulas of gold, and household articles as dowry. However, her parents gave Rs.5 lakhs, 12 tulas of gold, and household articles, including electronic items. She further stated that she was treated well for about three months and thereafter subjected to mental and physical harassment for an additional dowry of Rs.5 lakhs. When she failed to meet this demand, she was beaten and abused by her husband and in-laws. On 11.03.2019, she was driven out of her matrimonial home, and when her brother came to take her, he was beaten with slippers. She lodged a complaint at WPS, Begumpet, on 30.04.2019, and counselling was conducted on 20.05.2019, during which the accused agreed to take her back after Ramzan, i.e., on 11.06.2019. However, they did not turn up. On 20.06.2019, a relative of her husband allegedly called her and made abusive and false allegations, including imputations of an illicit relationship with her brother. She also stated that her 12 tulas of gold and household articles are still in the custody of her husband and in-laws. Based on her complaint, Crime No.178 of 2019 was registered. After conducting investigation, the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet before the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, and said Court has taken cognizance and numbered the case as C.C.No.8014 of 2020. 3. Heard Mr.M.A.Mujeeb, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1. 4. There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2/de-facto complainant, either in physical mode or virtual mode. 5. 3. Heard Mr.M.A.Mujeeb, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1. 4. There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2/de-facto complainant, either in physical mode or virtual mode. 5. Though the Criminal Petition was filed seeking quashment of the proceedings against petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5, learned counsel confined his prayer to quashing the proceedings insofar as petitioner No.4/accused No.4 is concerned and not pressed the criminal petiton against petitioner Nos.1 to 3 and 5/accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner No.4/accused No.4 has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint and charge sheet, the ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out against petitioner No.4/accused No.4. He further submitted that LWs.5 and 6, who are independent witnesses, specifically stated in their statements that petitioner No.4/accused No.4 had no involvement in the disputes between petitioner No.1/accused No.1 and respondent No.2/de-facto complainant. He further submitted that petitioner No.4/accused No.4 is the own brother of petitioner No.1/accused No.1 and is eking out his livelihood through private employment, and he has never resided with petitioner No.1/accused No.1 and respondent No.2/de-facto complainant. He further submitted that respondent No.2 has implicated all the family members of petitioner No.1/accused No. 1 with an intention to harass them, by making omnibus allegations. Hence, continuation of the criminal proceedings against petitioner No.4/accused No.4 is a clear abuse of the process of law. 7. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that whether petitioner No.4/accused No.4 has committed the alleged offences or not has to be determined only after a full-fledged trial before the trial Court. The grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners involve disputed question of facts, and basing on the same, petitioner No.4/accused No.4 is not entitled to seek quashment of the proceedings. 8. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that petitioner No.4/accused No.4 is own brother of petitioner No.1/accused No.1. Petitioner No.1/accused No.1 and respondent No.2/de-facto complainant are husband and wife, and their marriage was solemnised on 26.11.2018, after which disputes arose between them. Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 08.08.2019 against petitioner No.1/accused No.1 and other accused. Petitioner No.1/accused No.1 and respondent No.2/de-facto complainant are husband and wife, and their marriage was solemnised on 26.11.2018, after which disputes arose between them. Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 08.08.2019 against petitioner No.1/accused No.1 and other accused. The Investigating Officer filed the final report before the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, on 18.06.2020. 9. After perusal of the complaint as well as the final report, it reveals that no specific allegations have been levelled against petitioner No.4/accused No.4 and the major allegations are levelled against petitioner No.1/accused No.1 and other accused. LWs.5 and 6, in their statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., have also stated that petitioner No.4/accused No.4 had no involvement in the disputes between petitioner No.1/accused No.1 and respondent No.2/de-facto complainant. 10. It is pertinent to mention that the law governing the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is well settled by the decision in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal , 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court illustratively catalogued categories of cases warranting quashment, such as when the allegations taken at face value do not constitute an offence, are absurd or inherently improbable, are actuated by mala fides, or where continuance of proceedings would amount to abuse of process, while cautioning that such power must be sparingly invoked to secure the ends of justice. 11. It is relevant to mention that in Geddam Jhansi v. State of Telangana , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 263 , the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the principles that were invoked to quash criminal proceedings under Sections 4 98-A, 506 IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, in so far as they related to the husband’s aunt and cousin, as the allegations against them were found to be omnibus and general, bereft of specific overt acts, resting merely on hearsay evidence, and further weakened by the fact that they resided separately from the matrimonial home. The Court held that dragging such distant relatives into criminal prosecution, in the absence of clear particulars of harassment 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 law, though the trial against the principal accused the husband and mother-in-law was allowed to proceed in accordance with law. 12. For the foregoing reasons and the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as well as the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ch. Bhajan Lal and Geddam Jhansi (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to invoke the provisions of Section 4 82 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioner No.4/accused No.4. 13. In the result, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed. The proceedings against petitioner No.4/accused No.4 in C.C.No.8014 of 2020 on the file of the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed. Insofar as petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and 5/accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 are concerned, the Criminal Petition is dismissed as not pressed. It is made clear that any of the observations made in this order are only confined for the purpose of deciding this case. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.