In Kahkashan Kausar Sonam and others v. State of Biharl, the Honble Supreme Court held that unless there are specifrc and

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor' High Court for the State of Telangana.

2. Elaoandula Shireesha, Wo. Raiu, Aged 25 years' Occ. Housewife, R/o. Venikatraopalli Village. Boinpalli Mandal, Rajanna Siricilla District. Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petitibn, the High court may be pleased to quash the criminal proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 4 to 7 in C.C.No.S 47 of 2024 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge' ...ResPondenUComPlainant Vemulawada for offences under Section a9g(A) of lpc, Sections 3 and 4 of Dp Act. 2 Petition under section.4€2 0f cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Cri'min'ai Feti'on,tnl Hiln dffi';;; be. pleased to stay a, further proceedingr in"iroin-g the appearance of the Petitioners/Accused Nos- 4 to z in c c. ruoltei Jloze on the fire of the Junior civit Judge, vemurawada for offences ,no"r-d""ti#isalay ot rpc, sections 3 and 4 of DP Act.

1. Elanganduta Laxmi. W/o H. No. 7-73, Mamidi pali, Konaraopet rrltanJJr, na] jn-,iltiri.ilt. 9jr_aldrai?l,r Age.d_62 years, Occ. Housewife. R/o. Dirtri"t. 2 Elagandula Chandraiah, S/o. Mallaiah, Aged 67 years, Occ. H.No. 7-73, Mamidipali,' KonaraoperwianEi[ ir;Jii"-biriorra (A-2) Agriculture. R/o. District. (A-3) AND .Petitioner/Accused Nos.2 & 3 State of Telanganal 1 . The State of Telanoana Rep. by its public prosecutor, High Court for the 2. Elagandula Shireesha. W/o R.gjyl Aggq 2_S years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. VenkatraopatiVilage,Boinpaitirr,i;;"d;i-R"ffi ]'s"iiiitrr.oi"tri"t. ...RespondenUComplainant :,:,*',;l[:h:['"%f,",'i::l3?:,l:,'],"3,,11i,"i8J,,1il,i',^[",31U:]i]":; i!i5 1"T :",:,H[ lx; #r:l,,slr;*j ;i: tl;ls i**lit,r:# Vemurawada for offences under sectionJga(A) ;irp"i b;"ti*; i ;;'4 ;IB; Act. o: Petition under section 52g of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds ot cri.-ir'"i'F"iition, the High court mav .pteased to stay a, further proceeJrg, l;;irii"g' tn.i "jp""i"rl;";i,fi: Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 and i i, cc.Ni.sai-oi)oi4 on the fire of the Junior Civil Judge, Vemulawada for offences under Section 498(A) of lPC, Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Shaikh Mohammed Rizwan Akhtar, Advocate for the Petitioners in CRLP.No.2966 of 2025 and CRLP.No.3070 of 2025 and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 in both Crlp's and none appeared for the Respondent No.2, in both CrlP's. The'Court made the following: COMMON ORDER - -"--x;+i,: r { i I I THE HON'BLE SRI JT'STICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

1. criminar petition No.2966 of 2o2s is frled by t]le petitioners/A4 to AZ and Criminat Petition No.3070 of 2O2S is filed by the petitionerc/A2 and A3 to quash the proceedings against them in c.c.No.S4z of 2024 on the file of Junior civil Judge, vemulawada registered for the offences under sections 49g-A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry prohibition Act.

2. Since the parties in both the criminar petitions are one and the same and the offences alteged against them are also similar, they are being heard together and disposed of by way of this Common Order. 3- The 2nd' respondent/defacto complainant approached t].e Bowenpally Police station and lodged a written complaint in Telugu, stating that she was man:ried to AL on lg.lo.2o22. At the time of marriage, a splendor bike, half tola of gold, and household articles worth Rs. 2.oo lakhs were given as dowry. After the ma:riage, they lived happily for about two months. Thereafter, A1 t- =- 2 (her husband) started consuming alcohol and began physically assaulting the defacto complainant.

4. It is alleged that A1, along with his parents (A2 and A3), sisters (A4 and A5), and their husbands (A6 and A7), demanded an additional dowry of Rs. 2.OO lakhs and forcibly sent her out of the matrimonial home in January 2023. Since then, she has been residing with her parents.

5. It is further alleged that the accused persons informed her that unless she brings an additional dowry amount of Rs. 2.OO lakhs, she would not be allowed. to return to the matrimonial home. Though a panchayat was conducted with the help of village elders, the accused did not agree to any compromise. A1's attitude remained unchanged, and he continued to demand Rs. 2.0O lakhs as additional dowry.

6. On the basis of the said complaint, the Police, Boinpalli, Rajanna Siricilla District registered a case in Crime No.242/2O23 for the offences under Sections 498-A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After conducting investigation, filed charge 3 sheet vide C.C.No.547 of 2024 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Vemulawada.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that only bald allegations have been made against the petitioners. He states that tJle petitioners/A2 to A7 never resided with the defacto complainant and A1 since the date of their marriage. It is further submitted that A 1 's sisters, A4 and A5, were already married much prior to Al's marriage with the defacto complainant and are residing separately with their respective husbands, A6 and A7.

8. The learned counsel contends that, apart from making vague and general allegations, the complaint does not contain any material to implicate the petitioners/A2 to A7 in the offences alleged. No specific overt acts have been attributed to any of the petitioners. He also submits that A2, the mother of A1, is of advanced age and that A3, the father of Al, is visually impaired. Therefore, on the basis of such bald and omnibus allegations that the petitioners supported A1, it cannot be said that the offence under Section 498-A IPC is prima facie made out against them. 4

9. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would argue that the truth or otherwise of the allegations can be elicited only after completion of full-fledged trial and sought for dismissal of these criminal petitions.

10. In the entire complaint, it is alleged-without mentioning any specific dates-that the petitioners/A2 to A7, along with A1 (husband of the defacto complainant), started harassing her for additional dowry of Rs. 2.OO lakhs. Although it is alleged tJlat the harassment began two months after the marriage, the complaint itself was lodged more than a year after the date of marriage.

11. It is further submitted that the complaint was filed only after A1 started residing separately from the defacto complainant. Prior to that, a vague and omnibus allegation was made that the parents-in-law,' sisters-in-1aw, and their husbands were all harassing her, without attributing any specific acts or incidents to any of the petitioners. L2. In Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State of Biharl, the Honble Supreme Court held that unless there are specifrc and | (202216 Supreme Court Cases 599 5 distinct allegations against the accused, the proceedings can be quashed. Under section 4g2 of cr.p.c, the court should be careful in. proceeding against relatives who are roped in on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations.

13. The Honble supreme court in the case of preeti Gupta v. state of Jharkhandz herd that the courts have to scrutinize the allegations made with great care and circumspection, especially against husband's relatives who were living in different cities and rarely have visited or stayed. with the couple.

14. As already obserwed. supra, only a bald allegation has been made that, after the marriage, alr the petitioners/A 4 to AT harassed the defacto complainant by demanding additional d.owry, without any specific overt acts being attributed to them. Moreover, it is not disputed that they have been residing separately since the date of the marriage of the 2"a respondent/defacto complainant with A1. In this background, this court deems it appropriate to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/ A4 to AZ. ,t. ' 1ZO|O17 Supreme Court Cases 667 I 6

15. Insofar as the petitionerslA2 and A3 afe concerned, as they are residing with A1, the truth or otherwise of the allegations levelled against them can only be elicited during the course of trial by the learned Tria1 Court.

16. In the result, the proceedings against petitionets/A4 to A7 in c.c.No.S 47 of 2024 on the frle of Junior civil Judge, vemulawada, are hereby quashed.

17. Since it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners/A2 (mother of A1) is suffering with old age problems and A3 (father of A1) is visually impaired, their appearance is d.ispensed with before the trial Court' However, the petitioners/A2 & A3 shalt present before the trial Court as and when required, either in person or through an advocate, by filing an application in that regard. Failing to adhere to any of the cond.itions imposed by this Court, any relief granted by this Court, shall stands vacated automatically.

18. This court also deems it appropriate to grant liberty to the petitionerc/A2 & A3 to file discharge application before the learned t-v trial Court, raising the salne contentions, which were raised herein' I I I 7 On such an application being filed, the concerned trial Court shall examine the application, obviously, on merits of the case, and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of filing of such an application by accused Nos.2 and 3.

19. Accordingly, the Criminal petition No.2966 of 2O2S is allowed and criminal Petition No.3070 of 2o2s is dismissed. consequentry, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- AHMED ABOULLAH KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 . The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Rajanna Siricilla. 2. The station House officer, Boinpalli police station, Rajanna Sircilla District. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, Heh Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to Sri Shaikh Mohammed Rizwan Akhtar, Advocate [OpUC] 5. Two CD Copies NVB/ABK HIGH COURT DATED:1610912025 c() t * I HE STA 0 I JAN ?026 f z .a;)f. a ,J'.TC COMMON ORDER CRLP.Nos.2966 and 3070 ol2025 ALLOWING THE CRLP.NO.2966 OF 2025 AND DISMISSING THE CRLP.NO.3O7O OF 2025 q