IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3740 of 2021 DATE OF ORDER:16.03.2026 Between:

Komuroju Manoj Aacharya & others ...Petitioners/Accused 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 in C.C.No.358 of 2020, on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate at Korutla, Jagital District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Heard Sri Aluvala Kedharnath, learned counsel who argued on behalf of Sri R.Mangulal, learned counsel on record for the petitioners as well as Sri K.Krishna Kalyan, learned counsel who argued on behalf of Sri K.Venumadhav, learned counsel on record for the respondent No.2.

3. Learned petitioners’ counsel submitted that the petitioners herein are the husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the de facto complainant and that the complaint does not disclose any specific allegations against the petitioners and that the present complaint has been filed as an afterthought pursuant to the legal notice issued by the petitioner No.1 calling the respondent No.2 to join his conjugal society pursuant to the petition filed for restitution of conjugal rights. The complaint or the charge sheet does not disclose any specific allegations of harassment and that there are bald allegations leveled against the petitioners herein which do not constitute an offence under Section 498A IPC. He further submitted that the petitioner No.3 is the sister-in-law of the defacto complainant who is already married and is residing at her matrimonial house and she never involved in the family affairs of the defacto complainant and petitioner/accused No.1 herein. Without there being any specific allegations, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners would be an abuse of process of law. He therefore prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that the petitioners have harassed the de facto complainant both physically and mentally and that when she conceived, the petitioners have threatened her to go for abortion and that accused No.1 would commit suicide if she does not agree for abortion and have also obtained the signature of respondent No.2 on blank paper. He further submitted that the petitioners necked out the defacto complainant without mending their attitude inspite of conducting several panchayats. That the prosecution has collected ample material to prove the offences against the petitioners and the evidence of the neighbouring witnesses would aid the case of the defacto complainant in proving the offences against the petitioners. He further submitted that though petitioner No.3 is residing at Korutla, it is only 5 Kms away from Ailapur village and that she used to frequently visit the house of the defacto complainant and used to harass her in many ways.

He therefore prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record. The contents of the complaint point out that accused No.1 used to harass the defacto complainant and that accused Nos.2 & 3 used to instigate accused No.1. It is pointed out that when the defacto complainant conceived, the petitioner No.1 has obtained the signature of defacto complainant on a blank paper threatening that if she does not go for abortion, he would commit suicide. It is further alleged that after she gave birth to a girl child, the harassment further increased and that accused No.1 has asked her to bring additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and was necked out of the house. The allegations do not point out any specific averments against the petitioner Nos.2 & 3 but for mentioning that they used to instigate accused No.1. As far as accused No.1 is conc