IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.12842 & 12843 of 2024 DATED: 22^nd JANUARY, 2026 Between:

Kandukuri Anjali Devi and Another …Petitioners AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad, through P.S. Narsingi, Cyberabad and Another …Respondents

COMMON ORDER :

Since both the Criminal Petitions are arising out of Crime No.340 of 2024, both the criminal petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

02. The Criminal Petition No.12842 of 2024 is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.1195 of 2024 on the file of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XIII Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendrangar, whereas the petitioner-accused No.4 has filed Criminal Petition No.12843 of 2024 seeking to quash the proceedings against her in Crime No.340 of 2024 of Narsingi Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘the Act’).

03. Heard Sri J.Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri D.Shashi Preetham, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4, Sri R.S.Sravan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State. Perused the record.

04. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of accused No.1 with respondent No.2 was solemnized on 12.04.2015. After the marriage, accused No.1 and respondent No.2 started their marital life at Hyderabad. For a few days, accused No.1 looked after respondent No.2 in a proper manner; thereafter, under the influence of accused Nos.2 to 4, he started harassing respondent No.2 to bring additional dowry from her parents. When respondent No.2 was five months pregnant, accused No.1 sent her to her parents’ house at Warangal and did not take care of her. Respondent No.2 was blessed with a baby girl, and accused No.1 did not take care of either respondent No.2 or their daughter. Accused Nos.1 to 4 did not allow respondent No.2 to speak with her parents during her pregnancy, did not provide proper food, restricted her movement outside the house, and subjected her to mental and physical harassment. Hence, respondent No.2 filed the present complaint for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

05. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that the petitioners are nothing to do with the alleged offences and that they never harassed the respondent No.2. The petitioner-accused No.2 is the mother-in-law, the petitioner- accused No.3 is the father-in-law, the petitioner-accused No.4 is the sister-in-law of respondent No.2. The petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 never interfered in the matrimonial issues of respondent No.2 and the accused No.1. The petitioners never demanded any dowry from respondent No.2 or from her parents. There are no specific allegations against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4. The contents of the complaint or charge sheet do not disclose the required ingredients to attract the offences under Sections 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act.

06. The learned Senior Counsel for petitioners further submits that respondent No.2 has filed F.C.O.P.No.670 of 2024 before the Family Court at Ranga Reddy District, wherein, she has stated that in September, 2019, she left the matrimonial home along with her daughter, itself clearly shows that the respondent No.2 has filed the present complaint with a delay of more than four years. While seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision in Dar