IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.7851 of 2022 Date: 20.01.2026 Between:

Jangeti Mahender S/o. Komuraiah ...Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad and another.

...Respondents

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.553 of 2022 on the file of the learned V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant lodged a complaint on 25.07.2020 before the WPS, Warangal, alleging that her marriage was performed with accused No.1 in the year 2001. At the time of marriage, on the demand of accused No.1 and his brother-in-law, the complainant’s parents allegedly paid Rs.3 lakhs and gave a motorcycle as dowry. After marriage, the complainant joined the matrimonial home and later shifted to Ramnagar, Hanamkonda. She alleged that accused No.1 subjected her to physical and mental harassment while under the influence of alcohol. Despite repeated counselling by the police and panchayats conducted before elders on several occasions, the alleged harassment continued. It is further alleged that on 27.05.2002, accused No.1 and his brother-in-law demanded additional dowry and abused her, and on 01.07.2002, they threatened her with a service revolver. Further incidents of harassment and threats were alleged in the years 2003, 2017, and 2019. Alleging continuous cruelty, threats to her life, and mental agony caused to her and her aged parents, the complainant sought necessary legal action.

3. Heard Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Sri Dasi Ramesh, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.2 submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the present case solely on the ground that he is the brother-in-law of accused No.1. It is submitted that the only allegation levelled against the petitioner is that on 27.05.2002 he demanded additional dowry along with accused No.1 and on 01.07.2002 the petitioner abused respondent No.2 by showing his service revolver. The said allegations do not attract the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, “DP Act”). The alleged incidents pertain to the year 2002, and respondent No.2 did not lodge any complaint based on the said allegations at the relevant time.

5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.2 implicated the petitioner only with an intention to harass him. There are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident dated 01.07.2002.

6. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the principles laid down by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in (i) Atluri Ravindra v. State of A.P., 2006 (3) ALT (CRI.) 82 (S.B.) and (ii) M.Madhusudhan Rao v. State, 2006 (1) ALD (CRl.) 945 (AP). Hence, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse of process of law.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2, submits that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner which attract the ingredients of the offences under Sections 498-A and 506 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act. It is submitted that at the time of marriage and on subsequent occasions, the petitioner demanded additional dowry and harassed respondent No.2 both physically and mentally, along with accused No.1. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact, which can be adjudicated and decided by the trial Court after a full-fledged trial. On the grounds raised in the present petition, the petit