IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.675 of 2021 Date: 22.01.2026 Between:

Smt. Prameela and five others … Petitioners And The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor and another … Respondents :ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the accused Nos.2 to 7 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.521 of 2019 on the file of the learned XVII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri presently Medchal-Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 509 and 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC) and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short “the D.P. Act”).

2. Brief facts of the case:

The marriage between respondent No.2 and accused No.1 was solemnized on 14.12.2011. At the time of marriage, Rs.25 lakhs in cash, 50 tulas of gold, and 5 kgs of silver were given as Adapadachu katnam to petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 as per the demands of the husband and his family, and Rs.10 lakhs was spent on marriage expenses. After joining the matrimonial home, the accused No.1 abused and threatened her to give divorce, and accused Nos.2 to 7 supported and encouraged harassment, torture, and forced divorce, restricting her from contacting her parents. The accused assaulted her, forcibly obtained her signatures on blank papers, took away her jewellery, neglected her during pregnancy, and did not visit her after delivery. Despite several panchayats conducted by her parents, the harassment continued, and in 2014, she was driven out of the matrimonial home and abusive messages were sent to her parents, suspecting her character.

Basing on the said complaint, the police registered a case in Crime No.724 of 2017 under Sections 498-A, 323, 509 and 506 read with 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the petitioners and accused No.1 before the XVII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at Malkajgiri and the same was numbered as C.C.No.521 of 2019.

3. Heard Sri Jakka Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-

State.

4. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 19.01.2026, there was no representation on behalf of respondent No.2 either physically or virtually. To give one more opportunity, the matter was posted to 21.01.2026. On 21.01.2026 also, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2 in the morning session and evening session. To give another opportunity, the matter was posted to 22.01.2026 under the caption ‘for dismissal’. Today also, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2 either physically or virtually. Hence, this Court is not having any option except to proceed with matter.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed the offence. They are falsely implicated in the present case as accused only on the ground that petitioner No.1 is mother of the accused No.1 and petitioner No.2 is husband of petitioner No.3 who is sister of accused No.1 and petitioner Nos.4 to 7 are brother-in-laws of respondent No.2. He further submitted that respondent No.2 implicated all the family members of her husband by making omnibus allegations, after their marriage, they were living separately and the petitioners never demanded or harassed respondent No.2 for additional dowry, even according to the allegations made either in the complaint or in the final report, the only allegation is levelled against the petitioners is that they encouraged accused No.1 to demand for additional dowry and the said allegations would not attract the ingredients under Sections 498-A of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Act. He further submitted that basing on the very same allegations, respondent No.2 filed D.V.C.No.27