IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.15416 of 2025 Date: 20.01.2026 Between:

Yenni Sharat Kumar and three others ...Petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 AND The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and another ...Respondents

ORDER

This criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.1048 of 2025 against the petitioners- Accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 on the file of the Kukatpally Police Station, Cyberabad District, for the offences under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) and Sections

3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. Heard Sri Karri Murali Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have never harassed the de facto complainant in any manner. He further submitted that petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 5 herein never resided along with the de facto complainant and accused No.1, and that they were never involved in their family matters. He further submitted that but from bald allegations, there are no specific allegations narrated by the de facto complainant against the petitioners. Therefore, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations against the accused that they used to support accused No.1 in harassing the de facto complainant for want of additional dowry. He further submitted that petitioner No.1 has not taken the de facto complainant and his daughter back into his society for the past six years. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record. The contents of the complaint indicate that petitioner No.1, who is the husband of the de facto complainant, abused her in filthy language and physically harassed her and that the other family members encouraged him in such harassment. With regard to accused Nos.2, 3, and 5, there are no specific allegations against them. However, it is specifically alleged that petitioner No.1, the husband of the de facto complainant, was in the habit of beating her and abusing her in filthy language. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the de facto complainant has been living separately from her husband/accused No.1 for the past six years. Thus, petitioner No.1 has not been taking care of his wife and daughter for the past six years, and no steps have been taken by him in this regard. In the absence of specific allegations against accused Nos.2, 3, and 5, continuation of the proceedings against them would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The Apex Court has held in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, (2025) 3SCC 735that:

“A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution.

Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. In the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the family of appellant No.1

have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of