SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Telangana) 583

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K.SURENDER, J.
B.Srikanth - Appellant 
Versus 
The State of Telangana - Respondent 
Writ Petition No. 1905 of 2019
Decided on : 02-04-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri Kakara Venkata Rao
For the Respondents: Smt.Soumya Rekah, Sri Krishna Kishore Kovvuri

The court held that unsubstantiated allegations of cruelty do not meet legal definitions under IPC, necessitating dismissal of proceedings if foundational claims lack credible evidence.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498-A and 506 - Writ petition for Mandamus to declare FIR No. 18 of 2018 illegal and abuse of process of criminal law - Petitioners challenged charges of cruelty and criminal intimidation based on allegations by the wife - Court concluded ongoing criminal proceedings were baseless due to lack of substantiated allegations of cruelty as defined under IPC. (Paras 28-39)

(B) The court emphasized that mere allegations without evidence do not constitute cruelty and reiterated that criminal proceedings should not continue if the foundational claims are unverifiable. (Paras 26-27)

Facts of the case:
A complaint was lodged by the wife alleging harassment and cruelty by her husband and in-laws, but the court found these claims unsubstantiated and influenced by the complainant’s diagnosed mental health issues. The marriage was dissolved on the grounds of cruelty after evidence indicated troubling behavior by the wife, including making false accusations.

Findings of Court:
The court quashed the FIR and associated criminal proceedings, highlighting the absence of credible evidence supporting the allegations.

Issues: Whether the allegations made by the wife constituted 'cruelty' as per IPC, and the validity of the FIR based on her mental state.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that for an accusation of cruelty to stand, there must be substantiated evidence to prove willful or coercive behavior intended to cause harm; vague complaints based on personal distress do not suffice.

Result: Writ petition allowed, and FIR quashed.

Table of Content
1. filing of writ petition for quashing fir. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. contents and timeline of complaints by respondent no. 4. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. arguments regarding mental health of respondent no. 4. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
4. response by respondent no. 4 about allegations. (Para 12)
5. court's observations on psychological assessments. (Para 13)
6. findings on dowry allegations. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
7. assessment of reconciliation efforts. (Para 18 , 19)
8. court's observations on custody and respondent's relationship with children. (Para 20 , 21)
9. allegations in relation to false claims. (Para 22 , 23)
10. chronology of important events in the case. (Para 24)
11. court's findings on the nature of the complaints. (Para 26 , 27 , 28)
12. legal interpretation of cruelty under ipc. (Para 29 , 30 , 31)
13. assessment of previous complaints and respective findings. (Para 32 , 33 , 34)
14. court's stance on the contextual evaluation of allegations. (Para 35 , 36 , 37)
15. conclusion to quash the proceedings against petitioners. (Para 38)
16. final ruling on quashing the proceedings. (Para 39)

ORDER :

K.SURENDER, J.

The writ petition is filed for a Mandamus declaring the FIR No.18 of 2018 on the file of SHO, Women Police Station, Begumpet, Hyderabad, charge sheet dated 30.05.2018 in CC.No.186 of 2018 on the file of XV Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Nampally, Hyderabad, and the Look-out circular dated 04.06.2018 issued by the Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Bureau of Immigration, New Delhi, against the 1st petitioner, at the instance of Respondent No. 3 (DCP, North Zone, Hyderabad), as illegal and abuse of process of Criminal Law and to quash the same.

2. Petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 have been arrayed as Accused Nos. 1 to 3 in CC No. 186 of 2018. Petitioner No. 1 is the husband of defacto complainant/Respondent No. 4, while Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are his father and mother, respectively.

3. A look-out circular dated 04.06.2018 was issued against Petitioner No. 1. However, this Court, vide an order dated 01.02.2019 in IA No. 1 of 2019 in W.P. No. 1905 of 2019, granted a stay on his arrest for one month. Following this, Petitioner No. 1 travelled from the USA to India and filed Criminal Petition No. 478/2019 in CC No. 186 of 2018, seeking the recall of the Non- Bailable Warrant (NBW) issued against him. This Court, vide an order dated 22.02.2019, allowed the petition and recalled the NBW issued against Accused No. 1/Petitioner No. 1. Consequently, the look-out circular issued by Women Police Station, Begumpet, was recalled by the Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, on 23.02.2019.

4. The complaint dated 05.12.2017, lodged by respondent no. 4, served as the basis for registering the FIR under Sections 498-A and 506 of the IPC. The contents of the complaint are extracted below:

“I Soumya, age 32 years, I married 11 years back with Mr. B Srikanth. I am staying in USA with my husband B. Srikanth. We have two children. Ishwarya 9 years, Anriudh 5 years. My in-laws 7-months back shifted to India and brought us. Not allowing to talk with my husband. Doing harassment here at home. They are making me to work at home by removing workers.

Big current wires are open and cement plastering work is going on and made me to water with sponge for curing on that. If I get current shock who is responsible? They have taken my cell phone and deleted all numbers. Not allowing to talk with my father and his side. Every day at home both of them scolding me as they like. They have taken out my passport and my children’s passports too. If I go to their home, they close the door on my face and told not to come. A month ago, my husband came to India for a month and left without telling me. In-laws did not allow me to talk with my husband and obstructed and disturbed. Scolding me saying that I am not required. 5 to 6 times they organised meetings with our society members and said Soumya will be sent to USA but they did not send. In front of 25 soci

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top