IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.12314 OF 2023 DATE: 10-02-2026 Between:

Vijay Kumar Gurramkonda … Petitioner And The State of Telangana, WPS, CCS, DD, Hyderabad, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad and another ... Respondents

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.8604 of 2023 on the file of learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court, Manoranjan Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 498A, 406 and 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Heard Sri K. Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. Nagesh, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the disputes in the present case arose at U.S.A. and that the petitioner and the sister of the de facto complainant are husband and wife, lived at U.S.A. and there is no averment as to dowry harassment, even according to the contents of the complaint. He further submitted that the complaint does not disclose any specific averments against the petitioner herein and that bald allegations are levelled against the petitioner. He further submitted that the de facto complainant being the brother-in-law of the petitioner lodged a false complaint and that no instances of harassment are reported in the complaint. That, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of process of law. He further submitted that when the offences are alleged to have been committed at U.S.A., sanction under Section 188 Cr.P.C. is mandatory and hence, the complaint is not maintainable. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings in the present C.C. against the petitioner. He relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana and another, 2024 LawSuit (SC) 392

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that the ingredients of the complaint attract the offences alleged under Sections 498A, 406 and 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. He further submitted that the petitioner was harsh upon the sister of the de facto complainant, even after begetting two sons. He further submitted that part of the offences occurred in India and hence, the complaint is very much maintainable. He further submitted that during the stay of the victim in India, certain amounts were transferred from the joint account of the victim and the petitioner into the account of the petitioner and with the said funds, the petitioner has purchased properties in the name of his father, causing loss to the victim. He further submitted that after filing the present complaint, the petitioner has resorted to file a criminal case against the de facto complainant and that he has put the sister of the de facto complainant to untold harassment. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. It is alleged that the petitioner herein has bullied, threatened and manipulated the sister of the de facto complainant with an intention of controlling her and benefiting from her services, both professionally and financially. It is specifically alleged that in August, 2022, when the petitioner and his wife (sister of the de facto complainant) moved to India, the petitioner and his family members treated the sister of the de facto complainant as a servant and has transferred the amounts existing in the joint account into the own account of the petitioner. It is further alleged that unable to bear the said harassment, the victim moved to U.S. with the two children and in retaliation, the petitioner has filed a false complaint of extortion against the de facto complainant, his father and his wife and is demanding that the victim should return to India unconditionally. It is further averred in the complaint that the petitioner al