IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.6960 OF 2024

01^ST DECEMBER, 2025 Between:

Ahmed Pasha Khadri. … Petitioner 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 petitioner-accused No.2 to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.1493 of 2019 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-XI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, at Rajendranagar, Cyberabad. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘the Act’).

2. Heard Sri Gulam Rabbani, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri Mohd. Majid Khan, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

Perused the record.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the marriage of the respondent No.2 with the son of accused No.2 was solemnized on 12.05.2016 incurring huge expenditure and giving dowry to the petitioners. After two months of her marriage, the attitude of in laws of respondent No.2 has changed and they started harassing her and started demanding more dowry from the parents of the complainant. Later a baby girl was born to her, due to which the petitioners were not happy and demanded additional dowry of Rs.30 lakhs, failing which she will not be permitted to come to her marital home. On 17.02.2018 when her parents and her brother went along with the complainant to her marital home inspite of showing any happiness they started scolding her brother and her parents as the demand made by her in laws and her husband was not fulfilled, as such her parents took back her. Hence the respondent No.2 filed the present case for the offences under Section

498-A of IPC and sections 4 and 6 of D.P.Act.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is nothing to do with the alleged offences and that he never harassed the respondent No.2. The petitioner-accused No.2 is the father in law of the complainant. The petitioner never demanded any dowry from respondent No.2 or from her parents. There are no specific allegations against the petitioner-accused No.2. The contents of the complaint or charge sheet do not disclose the required ingredients to attract the offences under Section 498-A of IPC and sections 4 and 6 of D.P.Act. While seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.2, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State of Telangana and another, 2024 INSC 953, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court of India at Paragraph Nos.18, 24, 31 and 32 held that:

“18. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that appellant No.1 harassed her and that appellant Nos.2 to 6 instigated him to do so, respondent No.2 has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment. She has also not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations.

24. Insofar as appellant Nos.2 to 6 are concerned, we find that they have no connection to the matter at hand and have been dragged into the web of crime without any rhyme or reason. A perusal of the FIR would indicate that no substantial and specific allegations have been made against appellant Nos.2 to 6 other than stating that they used to instigate appellant No.1 for demanding more dowry. It is also an admitted fact that they never resided with the couple namely appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 and their children. Appellant Nos.2 and 3 resided together at Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh. Appellant Nos. 4 to 6 live in Nellore, Bengaluru and Guntur respectively.

31. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand (2010