IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.9836 of 2023 DATE OF ORDER:17.02.2026 Between:

Kokkati Laxmi @ Laxmamma & 3 others ...Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 5 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, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C) seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5 in C.C.No.9674 of 2021, on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum- V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal- Malkajgiri District at L.B.Nagar, registered for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act read with 34 of IPC.

2. Heard Sri Vennamraj Venkateshwar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5 as well as Sri Erigi Ganesh, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State. Though notice was issued to respondent No.2 through paper publication published in “Namaste Telangana” on

21.12.2023, none appeared before this Court to represent the case.

3. Learned petitioners’ counsel submitted that there are no specific averments against the petitioners with regard to the alleged harassment and that the de facto complainant has leveled all bald allegations against the petitioners herein who never lived with the de facto complainant at any point of time. Petitioner No.1 is the mother of accused No.1; petitioner Nos.2 & 4 are the daughters of accused No.2; petitioner No.3 is the son-in-law of accused No.2 and that they are no way related to the disputes between the de facto complainant and the accused No.1. Even as per the contents of the complaint, none of the ingredients under Section 498A gets attracted against the petitioners. Thus, continuation of proceedings against them would be an abuse of process of law and therefore prayed to quash the same. In support of his contentions, learned petitioners’ counsel also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in the case of KAHKASHAN KAUSAR @ SONAM & ORS. VS.

STATE OF BIHAR & ORS, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141 wherein, Paras 17 & 18 of the said judgment read as under:-

“17. Recently in K.Subba Rao v.The State of Telangana [(2018)

14 SCC 452], it was also observed that:-

“6. The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.”

18. The above mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this Court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analyzing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court by way of its judgments has warned the Courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.”

4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has submitted that the contents of the complaint point out that at the instigation of the petitioners, the husband of the de facto complainant/accused No.1 harassed her. He therefore prayed to pass appropriate orders.

5. Perused the record.

6. The contents of the complaint point out specific allegations against the husband of the de facto complainant, who is accused No.1, in this case. However, there are no specific incidents of harassment against the petitioners herein. A single line allegation is made ag