HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA *****

CRIMINAL PETITION No.11713 of 2022 Between:

Chilakanti Mounika ... Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad and another ... Respondents DATE OF ORDER: 3^rd July, 2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:-

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

1 Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be Yes/No allowed to see the Judgment?

2 Whether the copies of judgment may be marked Yes/No to Law Reporters/Journals

3 Whether HER Lordship wish to see the fair copy of Yes/No the Judgment?

_____________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J * THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI + Criminal Petition No.11713 of 2022 % Date: 03^rd July, 2025 Between:

Chilakanti Mounika ... Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad and another ...

Respondents ! Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Khaja Vizarath Ali, ! Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1: Smt.S.Madhavi ! Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Ms. Majji Triveni >HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred

1. 2025 INSC 160

2. AIR 2025 SUPREME COURT 173 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.11713 of 2022

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.4 seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against her in C.C.No.766 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Miryalaguda. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘the Act’).

02. Heard Sri Khaja Vizarath Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.4 and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1 as well as Ms. Majji Triveni, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.2.

Perused the record.

03. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the accused No.1 and the respondent No.2 was solemnized on 14.05.2021 and they lived happily for some time. Subsequently, the accused No.1 allegedly subjected the respondent No.2 to physical and mental cruelty and harassment in connection with unlawful demands for dowry. The other accused including the petitioner herein had instigated the accused No.1 to harass the respondent No.2. Aggrieved by the said harassment, the respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint, alleging offences under Section 498-A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner-accused No.4 has no involvement whatsoever in the alleged offences and has never subjected the respondent No.2 to any form of harassment. It is submitted that the petitioner- accused No.4, who is the sister of the accused No.1 has not interfered in the matrimonial affairs between the respondent No.2 and the accused No.1. The petitioner-accused No.4 used to reside at Nizamabad District for the purpose of her studies and thereafter, she left to Australia along with her husband. The petitioner-accused No.4 has neither demanded dowry from the respondent No.2 nor from her parents at any point of time. It is further contended that there are no specific or direct allegations made against the petitioner-accused No.4 in the complaint or the charge sheet. The contents of the same do not disclose the essential ingredients necessary to constitute offences under Section 498-A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act.

05. With the above submissions, while praying for quashment of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner-

accused No.4, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision in Geddam Jhansi and another v. The State of Telangana and others, [2025 INSC 160] wherein the Honourable Supreme Court at Paragraph Nos.31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 and 38 held that:

“31. Invoking criminal process is a serious matter with penal consequences involving coercive measures, which can be permitted only when specific act(s) which constitute