IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.460 of 2021 DATE OF ORDER:11.02.2026 Between:

Bidla Vikas & another ...Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 & 3 AND The State of Telangana rep.by its Public Prosecutor & another.

...Respondents

ORDER

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘Cr.P.C) seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 & 3 in C.C.No.743 of 2019, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. Heard Smt.K.Annapurna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 & 3 as well as Sri M.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

3. Learned petitioners’ counsel submits that the petitioners herein are the brother and sister-in-law of accused No.1 and that accused No.1 is the husband of the defacto complainant herein. The petitioners herein have never resided with the defacto complainant and that they never harassed her. She further submitted that there are no specific incidents of harassment even according to the complaint and that without there being any specific incidents of harassment, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners would be an abuse of process of law. She therefore prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that it is specifically stated in the complaint that the petitioners herein, who are accused Nos.2 & 3, have harassed the defacto complainant by abusing her in filthy language and asked her to give divorce to accused No.1. He further submitted that all the witnesses i.e., mother of the defacto complainant, the elder paternal uncle of the defacto complainant and the neighbouring witness have supported the version of the defacto complainant. He therefore prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record. The contents of the complaint point out a single averment against the petitioners wherein it is stated that accused Nos.2 & 3 herein who are the brother- in- law and co-sister of the defacto complainant, used to abuse her in filthy language and ask her to give divorce to accused No.1. But for this allegation, there are no other allegations nor there are specific incidents of harassment alleged against the petitioners and no dates of harassment are mentioned in the complaint. It is only a bald allegation made against the petitioners herein without there being any specific incidents of harassment. The statements of witnesses if perused reveal the same allegations as mentioned in the complaint that they used to abuse the defacto complainant in filthy language and asked her to give divorce. In the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State of Telangana and another, 2024 LawSuit(SC) 1108, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:-

“25. 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-recognized 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 particularized 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.”

6. In the case of Geddam Jhansi and another v. State of Telangana and others, 2025 LawSuit(SC) 169 , the Apex Court held that criminal proceedings against relatives in domestic violence/dowry cases can be quashed if the allegations against them are