IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.7206 of 2020 Date:06.01.2026 Between:

Shaik Amar.

...Petitioner/Accused No.6 AND The State of Telangana, represented by its Public Prosecutor, through Police Station WPS, Warangal City, High Court of Judicature of Telangana at Hyderabad and another.

...Respondents.

ORDER

This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.3541 of 2019 on the file of learned V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Warangal, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.6 for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).

2. Heard Ms.N.Kamala, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.V.Aditya, learned counsel, representing Mr.M.V.Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2, and Mr..M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1/State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed the alleged offence and he was falsely implicated in the present case only on the ground that he is close friend of the accused No.1. He further submitted that there are no allegations muchless specific allegations against the petitioner to attract the ingredients for the offence under Section 506 of the IPC. The entire allegations are levelled against accused Nos.1 to 5 only. Hence, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse of the process of law.

4. Per Contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2, submitted that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner, that he and accused Nos.1 to 5 harassed respondent No.2 and also there is specific allegation made by respondent No.2 is that accused Nos.1 to 5 with the assistance of the petitioner herein threaten to kill her.

Hence, the ingredients of the offence under Section 506 of the IPC are attracted against the petitioner. Whether the petitioner has committed the offence or not, the same has to be revealed after full-fledged trial before the trial Court. Basing on the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings. Hence, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor also reiterated the submissions made by the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that basing on the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 Crime No.142 of 2019 was registered against accused Nos.1 to 6 and the Investigation Officer after recording the statements of the witnesses filed final report on 28.10.2019 and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 498A and 506 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short ‘DP Act’) against accused Nos.1 to 5 and also taken cognizance for the offence under Section 506 of the IPC against the petitioner/accused No.6.

7. Upon perusal of the complaint as well as the final report, it is revealed that there are no specific allegations are levelled against the petitioner and the only allegation made against the petitioner is that accused Nos.1 to 5 are threatening to kill her with the assistance of the accused No.6 and he along with other accused stated that the respondent No.2 is not having good character. The entire allegations about the demand of additional dowry and harassment against other accused and the petitioner is not a family member and he is friend of accused No.1. The allegations made in the complaint as well as final report the ingredients for the offence under Section 506 of the IPC is not attracted against the petitioner.

8. It is pertinent to mention that in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal1, the Hon’ble Apex Court, after reviewing the relevant provisions of the Cr.P