IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.9109 of 2024

18^TH 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.

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 Nos.2 and 3 are parents of the 1^st petitioner and petitioner Nos.4 and 6 are brother and sister of the 1^st petitioner and petitioner No.5 is the wife of the 4^th 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 1^st 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.

6. On perusal of the material, there are no specific allegations against the petitioners. It is apparent f