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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 32843

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
Byorini Sarangapani – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
CRLP 9109/2024



##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.9109 of 2024

18TH DECEMBER, 2025

Between:

Byorini Sarangapani and 5 others. … Petitioners

AND

The State of Telangana

Rep. through Public Prosecutor and 1 other …Respondents

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 6

seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.137 of 2018

on the file of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal. The

offences alleged against the petitioners are under section 498-A of

Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act-1961 (for short ‘The Act’).

2. Heard Smt.K.Jayasree, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused

Nos.1 to 6 and Mr.M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for the State. None entered appearance for respondent No.2-

de facto complainant. Perused the record.

##PAGE2##

2

3. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage of de facto

complainant was performed with accused No.1 on 01.05.2014. At the

time of marriage, her parents gave cash and gold ornaments towards

dowry. Later, petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2-de facto complainant

set up a family at Hafeezpet, Hyderabad and out of wedlock, she

became pregnant, but due to ill health her pregnancy was aborted.

Though it was informed to the petitioners that the de-facto complainant

was married earlier to another person and later her first marriage was

dissolved, but the petitioner No.1 under the guise of the first marriage

started harassing her to get additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and the

petitioner Nos.2 to 6 herein supported him and thereby subjected her to

physical and mental harassment and demanded to give divorce to her

and driven her out of house. Basing on the said complaint, police

registered a case in Crime No.158 of 2017. Later the police completed

the entire investigation and filed charge sheet and the same was

numbered as C.C.No.137 of 2018 on the file of I Additional Judicial First

Class Magistrate, Warangal.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that the petitioners

are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case by the de facto

complainant. Petitioner No.1 is the husband of de facto complainant, petitioner

##PAGE3##

3

Nos.2 and 3 are parents of the 1st petitioner and petitioner Nos.4 and 6 are

brother and sister of the 1st petitioner and petitioner No.5 is the wife of the 4th

petitioner. The present complaint was lodged by the de facto complainant after

eleven years of her marriage with accused No.1. It is submitted that the de

facto complainant was already married and obtained divorce from her 1st

husband, but the said fact was not disclosed to the petitioners herein at the

time of marriage. When the de facto complainant and her parents were

questioned about the same, the de facto complainant to cover up the same,

lodged a complaint with all false and frivolous allegations. It is submitted that

there was no exchange of any dowry and when there was no exchange of

dowry, the question of harassing the de facto complainant for any dowry much

less the additional dowry does not arise. It is further submitted that in the cross

examination of the de facto complainant in C.C.No.137 of 2018 she deposed

that after filing this case she re-married another person namely Kakkanala

Suman reddy who is her third husband and blessed with two children.

Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners are abuse of process of law.

Hence, he prays to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended

that all the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet

are subject matter of trial, and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the

proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.

##PAGE4##

4

6. On perusal of the material, there are no specific allegations against the

petitioners. It is apparent from the

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