##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5363 OF 2025

24.03.2026

Between:

Renikuntla Prabhu Chandu & others ….. Petitioners

And

The State of Telangana, Through SHO PS Shayampet,

Hanumakonda District & another

….. Respondents

O R D E R:

Petitioners are Accused 1 to 5 in C.C. No. 415 of

2024 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Principal Judicial Magistrate of I Class at Parkal (Crime No. 100 of 2024 of PS Shayampet, Hanumakonda District) for the offences under Sections 498-A, 294(b), 323, 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Petitioners 1, 4 and 5 are brothers and they are sons of Petitioners 2 and 3. Respondent No. 2 – de facto

complainant is wife of petitioner No. 1/Accused No. 1.

1.1. It is stated, on 12.08.2024 at 5.30 pm., Respondent No.2 gave a written complaint to the SHO of PS Shayampet against petitioners stating that her marriage with petitioner No.1 was solemnized and at that time, her parents gave dowry

2

in the form of cash and gold. Subsequently, her husband and parents-in-law started harassing her physically and mentally with a demand to bring additional dowry of Rs. 10 lakhs and it was supported by her brothers-in-law. Due to the unbearable harassment, Respondent No.2 is stated to have left the house in Shayampet and residing with her parents. In that context, on 12.04.2024 at 4.00 PM, it is stated, petitioners came to her parents’ house in Shayampet and abused her father in filthy language and all of a sudden, pounced upon him and beat him indiscriminately with hands and threatened to kill the entire

family.

1.2. Petitioners seek to quash the proceedings in C.C. on the ground that there is no evidence on record which could prove the offences against them beyond reasonable doubt. Prosecution failed to justify the delay occurred between 12.04.2024, the date on which Respondent No.2’s father was stated to have beaten and 12.08.2024 i.e. date of complaint. It is argued, the Investigating Officer has not collected any medical reports to prove the injuries on the body of Respondent No.2’s father and has also not examined and recorded the statements

of the alleged neighbors who rescued him.

3

1.3. It is also stated, the investigating officer has not examined any elder who is present in those panchayats. In the absence of any evidence to prove conducting of those panchayats, there will be no evidence on record to explain the delay in giving report to police. This important aspect is not considered by learned magistrate while taking cognizance of the offences. It is stated, on 12.08.2024 during morning hours, the 1st petitioner filed divorce petition before the Principal Senior Civil Judge Court at Hanamkonda and on coming to know the same, Respondent No.2 filed the subject complaint with false allegations. Petitioners allege that Respondent No.2 had illicit intimacy with Balla Prashant alias Akhil Mudhiraj of Pragathisingaram Village of Shayampet Mandal and she

continued that intimacy even after the marriage.

1.4. It is stated, petitioner No.2 is the employee of Sushee Hi-Tech Projects Pvt. Ltd. and petitioner No.1 is an employee of ICICI Bank in Hyderabad and on 12-04-2024, both of them were on duty, therefore, the question of their presence in Shayampet on that date at 4.00 pm does not arise and it shows that the alleged incident is false and is falsely implicated. Petitioner No. 5 is a student prosecuting his studies in Hyderabad and he is living with his brother who is petitioner

4

No.1. This aspect with proof was placed in the notice of the

investigating officer, but he suppressed the same.

1.5. Petitioners 3 and 4 who are parents are residing in their house in Jawahar colony, Hanamkonda on 12.04.2024 and the same was also informed to the Investigating Officer, but he has not conducted any investigation on that aspect. The Investigating Officer did not conduct fair investigation in the matter