Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 7169
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Tirumala Devi Eada, J
Susheel Thakur – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5520 OF 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: G. Srinivas
For the Respondents: S. Ashok Anand Kumar
A criminal proceeding cannot be quashed if prima facie allegations of bigamy and criminal breach of trust exist, regardless of whether a previous case on similar grounds of harassment ended in acquittal due to a compromise.
Headnote:The petitioner sought to quash proceedings registered under Sections 498A, 494, and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The de facto complainant alleged that the petitioner harassed her, demanded money, withheld gold ornaments, and married another woman during the subsistence of their marriage. The petitioner contended that a previous complaint under Sections 498A and 506 IPC had been compromised and that proceedings against other co-accused had already been quashed. The court examined whether the current allegations warranted a trial. It was observed that while the previous case ended in acquittal because the complainant turned hostile, the present case includes a specific allegation of bigamy under Section 494 IPC. Regarding Section 406 IPC, the court noted that the allegation of gold ornaments remaining with the petitioner requires evidence at trial to determine misappropriation. The court reasoned that since the petitioner is the husband and specific allegations of bigamy and threats exist, the relief of quashing cannot be extended to him. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the police concerned to complete investigation in the present crime strictly in accordance with law.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of matrimonial harassment, bigamy, and misappropriation of property. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding the impact of a previous compromise on current criminal proceedings. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. prima facie evidence of bigamy and entrustment of property precludes the quashing of proceedings. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. direction for the completion of investigation in accordance with law. (Para 8) |
##PAGE1##
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5520 OF 2020
DATE: 03-03-2026
Between:
Susheel Thakur
… Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court Building,
High Court, Hyderabad and another
... Respondents
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1
seeking to quash the proceedings against him in Crime No.38 of
2020 of Women Police Station, Begumpet, Hyderabad City,
registered for the offences under Sections 498A , 494 and 406
I.P.C.
2. Heard Sri G. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri S. Ashok Anand Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for
respondent No.2.
##PAGE2##2 ETD,J
Crl.P.No.5520 of 2020
3. The case of respondent No.2-de facto complainant is that
the petitioner-accused No.1 never allowed her to contact her
parents, while they were staying at U.K.; that after coming back to
India in the month of May, 2014, they lived at Hyderabad for few
days and thereafter, left to Mumbai as the petitioner got
placement in Tata Consultancy Services; and that in July, 2014,
petitioner called her mother and requested to take her and the girl
child to Hyderabad for a change in place. Thereafter, the
petitioner has filed a divorce case vide O.P.No.1545 of 2014. It is
the further case of the de facto complainant that subsequently
she filed a complaint, which was registered as C.C.No.192 of
2015 on the file of learned XV Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Special Court for the Trial of Video Piracy Cases,
Hyderabad, for the offences under Sections 498A and 506 I.P.C.
against the petitioner and accused No.3. When the said C.C.
came up for trial, the petitioner started requesting her over phone
that he would take her back into his company and look after her
and their daughter affectionately. It is alleged that the petitioner
used to harass her, abuse her in filthy language and accuse her
for giving birth to a baby girl. Further, he demanded
Rs.15,00,000/- and requested her to withdraw the said C.C. and
that he would return all her gold ornaments gifted at the time of
##PAGE3##3 ETD,J
Crl.P.No.5520 of 2020
marriage. It is further alleged that the documents pertaining to
herself and the girl child are in the custody of the petitioner. It is
further alleged that the sister of the petitioner is an active
participant at NRI Mahila Sangam at Kothapet and used to
support the petitioner in all his activities and that accused Nos.3
and 4 always supported the petitioner in harassing her. It is
further alleged that the petitioner married another lady by name
Madhuri Patel-accused No.2, during the subsistence of their
marriage. Therefore, the present complaint is filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier
respondent No.2-de facto complainant has filed a complaint
under Sections 498A and 506 I.P.C. against the petitioner and
accused No.3. Subsequently, on 01.04.2016, the de facto
complainant has withdrawn the same, as it was compromised.
Now, again with similar set of allegations, the present complaint
is filed. Since the matter under the same set of allegations has
ended in compromise, there would not be any cause in the
present complaint. He further submitted that just to harass the
accused herein and out of vengeance, the present complaint has
been filed by the de facto complainant, since the marital
relationship got strained. He further submitted that the
##PAGE4##4 ETD,J
Crl.P.No.5520 of 2020
proceedings against accused Nos.2 to 4 in the same crime are
quashed and that the same relief be extended to the petitioner
also
