2025 INSC 160 1

R E P O R T A B L E

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). _____ OF 2025

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.9556 of 2022)

GEDDAM JHANSI & ANR. ...APPELLANTS (S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

With

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). _____ OF 2025

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.428 of 2024

GEDDAM JHANSI ...APPELLANTS (S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR. …RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, J.

Leave granted in both the SLPs.

2. This common order disposes of both the Criminal Appeals arising

out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9556 of 2022 and Special

2

Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 428 of 2024 as both these appeals relate to

similar and connected incidents.

3. Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9556 of 2022 was filed

against the judgement and order dated 04.04.2022 passed by the Ld. Single

Bench of the High Court for the State of Telangana in Criminal Petition

No. 3105 of 2022 whereunder the High Court declined to quash the

criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 46 of 2022 under Section 498A, 506

Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short “Dowry Act”) pending before the Court

of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhongir under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”) by holding that,

prima facie, there are certain allegations against both the appellants,

Geddam Jhansi and Geddam Sathyakama Jabali, and that these are triable

issues for which the appellants have to face trial and prove their innocence.

4. Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 428 of 2024 has been

preferred against the judgement and order dated 03.02.2022 passed by the

Ld. Single Bench of the High Court for the State of Telangana in Criminal

Petition No. 1002 of 2022 whereunder the High Court declined to quash

the criminal proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic

Violence Act, 2005 (for short “DV Act”) in DVC No. 25 of 2021 pending

before the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhongir

under Section 482 of CrPC on similar ground by holding that, prima facie,

there are specific allegations against the sole appellant, Geddam Jhansi,

and the same have to be decided only after enquiry.

5. Being aggrieved by the refusal of the High Court to quash the

aforesaid criminal proceedings pending before the concerned Magistrates,

the present appeals have been preferred.

3

6. The gravamen of the plea of the appellants in both the appeals is that

the allegations against them are vague and are of a generalised nature

without any specific overt act attributed to them, thus, incapable of being

fastened with criminal liability, which unfortunately, the High Court had

failed to appreciate.

7. The relevant facts in brief as may be culled from the pleadings is

that a written complaint was filed before the Mahila Police Station

Bhuvanagiri on 17.09.2021 by one Premlata (hereinafter referred to as

“complainant”) in which it was mentioned that she was married to one

Samuel Suresh, a doctor by profession and a resident of Chennai on

17.08.2016 and at the time of marriage her mother-in-law, Pathagadda, had

demanded a sum of Rs.30 Lakhs and accordingly, the complainant’s

mother had given Rs.10 Lakhs by way of cash and 15 tolas of gold as

dowry to her mother-in-law. It was stated that for about five months after

the marriage, the complainant’s husband had treated her well and took care

of her properly. Unfortunately, later, her husband suspecting her character

started harassing her mentally and physically to get additional dowry of

Rs.10 Lakhs, for which her mother-in-law, the younger sister of her

mother-in-law, namely, Geddam Jhansi (Appellant No.1), her brother-in-

law, Sudheer, and the son of Geddam Jhansi, namely, Geddam

Sathyakama Jabali (Appellant No.2) pressurized her to act according to her

husband’s and mother in law’s wishes and also threatened to kill her if the

demand for dowry was not met. It was also alleged that because of their

behaviour, the complainant’s mother organised panchayat several times

before the elders and other family members. It was alleged that in front of

the elders, her husband had agreed to take care of her properly but as usual

after sometime he started harassing her because of which she ultimately

4

approached the police for counselling but there was no change in their

behaviour leaving her no alternative but to file the aforesaid complaint.

8. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, FIR No. 54 of 2021 was

registered at Bhongir Women PS, Rahakonda District, under Sections

498A, 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act against the

complainant's husband, complainant's mother-in-law, complainant’s

brother in law and the present two appellants. On completion of the

investigation, Charge Sheet No. 46 of 2021 was filed before the Court of

the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhongir under Sections 498A, 506 IPC

and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act against the aforesaid accused

including the present two appellants, which is now pending before the

aforesaid court in C.C. No. 46 of 2022.

9. Apart from the aforesaid complaint filed before the Mahila Police

Station, another complaint was filed by the complainant on 20.09.2021

before the Protection Officer, Bhuvanagari alleging cruelty and criminal

intimidation under the DV Act, 2005 making similar allegations with the

additional allegations that on one occasion, her husband asked her not to

touch his clothes and to go away from the kitchen and that he tried to burn

his socks because the complainant had washed them. It was also alleged

that her husband had influenced his friends to talk ill of her, who in turn

used to call the complainant and ask her to leave her husband, further

telling her that her husband has a girlfriend who had taken divorce to marry

him. It was also alleged that on 17.10.2020 at around 10:00 p.m, the

complainant was beaten and pushed out of the matrimonial house by her

husband.

5

10. The complainant accordingly, approached the Judicial Magistrate

First Class, Bhongir where a case under DV Act, being DVC No. 25 of

2021 was registered and is now pending.

11. At this stage it may be apposite to mention herein that the allegations

are not one way and the husband had made counter allegations against the

complainant. Before the aforesaid complaints were filed by the

complainant, the husband of the complainant instituted a divorce

proceeding before the Court of the Principal District Judge at

Kanchipuram, which was registered as I.D.O.P. No. 44 of 2021 under

Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 alleging neglect, insensitivity

to the needs of the husband, incompatibility, concealment of facts, showing

hostile attitude towards the husband, refusal to consummate the marriage,

causing mental and physical harassment and desertion since 10 April 2018.

12. As we proceed to examine the issues involved, we may briefly

allude to the law relating to quashing of FIRs/criminal proceedings, which

is well-settled and summarised by this Court in the State of Haryana and

Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors., 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 in which this Court

held as below:

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant

provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law

enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise

of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers

under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and

reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of

illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent

abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of

justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly

defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid

formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases

wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or

the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and

accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any

offence or make out a case against the accused.

6

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and

other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a

cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers

under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a

Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or

complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do

not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case

against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a

cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence,

no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order

of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the

Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so

absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no

prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is

sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the

provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a

criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and

continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific

provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious

redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with

mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted

with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused

and with a view to spite him due to private and personal

grudge.”

13. In the present case, the charge-sheet has been filed before the Court

of the Magistrate in C.C. No. 46 of 2022 after investigation was completed

by the police on the basis of the complaint/FIR lodged by the complainant

and another proceeding is also pending under the DV Act before the Court

of the Additional Judicial Magistrate. However, this will not preclude this

Court from interfering with the criminal proceedings, if upon perusal of

the complaints, the materials gathered during the investigation and in the

charge-sheet, it is found that no prima facie case has been made out against

the appellants and the criminal proceedings amount to abuse of the process

of law. As mentioned above, the common plea of the appellants in both the

proceedings is that allegations against them are of a generalized nature

7

devoid of specific offending acts to constitute offences punishable under

law.

14. In this regard, we may recall what this Court has held in Anand

Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2019) 11 SCC 706 as regards

permissibility of quashing of proceeding once charge-sheet is filed as

follows:

“14. First, we would like to deal with the submission of the learned

Senior Counsel for Respondent 2 that once the charge-sheet is filed,

petition for quashing of FIR is untenable. We do not see any merit in

this submission, keeping in mind the position of this Court in Joseph

Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat [Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat,

(2011) 7 SCC 59 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 23] . In Joseph Salvaraj A.

[Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 7 SCC 59 : (2011) 3

SCC (Cri) 23] , this Court while deciding the question whether the

High Court could entertain the Section 482 petition for quashing of

FIR, when the charge-sheet was filed by the police during the pendency

of the Section 482 petition, observed : (SCC p. 63, para 16)

“16. Thus, from the general conspectus of the various sections

under which the appellant is being charged and is to be

prosecuted would show that the same are not made out even

prima facie from the complainant's FIR. Even if the charge-sheet

had been filed, the learned Single Judge [Joesph Saivaraj A. v.

State of Gujarat, 2007 SCC OnLine Guj 365] could have still

examined whether the offences alleged to have been committed

by the appellant were prima facie made out from the

complainant's FIR, charge-sheet, documents, etc. or not.”

15. Even otherwise also, it must be remembered that the provision

invoked by the accused before the High Court is Section 482 of the

CrPC and that this Court is hearing an appeal from an order under

Section 482 of the CrPC. Section 482 of the CrPC reads as follows:

“482. Saving of inherent powers of the High Court.—Nothing

in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent

powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be

necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to

prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure

the ends of justice.”

16. There is nothing in the words of this section which restricts the

exercise of inherent powers by the Court to prevent the abuse of

process of court or miscarriage of justice only up to the stage of the

FIR. It is settled principle of law that the High Court can exercise

jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC even when the discharge

application is pending with the trial court [G. Sagar Suri v. State of

U.P., (2000) 2 SCC 636, para 7, Umesh Kumar v. State of A.P., (2013)

8

10 SCC 591, para 20]. Indeed, it would be a travesty to hold that

proceedings initiated against a person can be interfered with at the

stage of FIR but not if it has advanced and the allegations have

materialised into a charge-sheet. On the contrary it could be said that

the abuse of process caused by the registration of the FIR stands

aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a charge-sheet after

investigation. The power is undoubtedly conferred to prevent abuse of

process of any court.

15. Keeping the aforesaid legal position in mind, we will examine

whether the facts/materials obtaining in the present case would warrant

interference of this Court under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing the

said criminal proceedings pending before the concerned courts.

16. As far as the first complaint is concerned, out of which the criminal

proceeding in “C.C. No.46 of 2022” has arisen, which is pending before

the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhongir, where the

charge-sheet has been filed, the relevant portions of the said complaint read

as follows: -

“xxxxxx

On 17.08.2016, I was married to Samuel Suresh. S/o. Late Janardhan

Rao, aged 38 years, Caste: SC (Madiga). Occupation: Doctor, R/o

Pondicherry in Chennai. At the time of marriage, my mother-in-law

demanded Rs. 30,00,000/- and accordingly my mother has given Rs.

10.00.000/- by way of cash and 15 tulas gold as dowry to my mother-

in-law. After the marriage for a period of 5 months or so, my husband

has taken care of me properly. Thereafter my husband started

suspecting my character and harassed mentally and physically to get

additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/-. I submit that my mother-in-law

Pathagadda Bharathi and younger sister of my Mother-in-Law namely

Geddam Jhansi, my brother-in-law Sudheer and son of younger sister

of my Mother-in-law namely Geddam Satya Rama Jabili all the

persons referred above used to pressurize to act according to my

husband's and Mother-in-law's wish, otherwise they threatened to kill

me. In this regard my mother organized Panchayathi several times,

before the elders and family members. In front of the elders, my

husband agreed to take care of me properly but as usual, after

sometime, he started harassing me. Thereafter. I have approached

Bhongiri Mahila Police Station and have given a complaint.

Thereafter, Police personnel called them for counselling, but there was

9

no change in the behaviour. In view of the above I request to take legal

action, on all persons mentioned above.”

(emphasis added)

17. Charge-sheet is filed only on culmination of the investigation during

which time the investigating agency collects all the relevant evidence in

support of the complaint on the basis of which a clear prima facie case

indicating commission of the offence must be made out against the accused

warranting trial. The investigation may uncover/throw up more detailed

and additional facts and evidence that would support the complaint/FIR.

Accordingly, this Court will examine the charge-sheet filed and examine

the evidence which has been gathered in the present case relating to “C.C.

No. 46 of 2022” to see if any new facts or evidence had been disclosed.

18. In this regard we may refer to the charge-sheet filed in connection

with the aforesaid case, relevant portions of which are reproduced

hereinbelow: -

“As per the evidence collected, during the course of the

investigation and as per detailed and discreet enquiries, prima-facie

care is made out against the A-1 to A-5 for the offence punishable U/s

498-(A). 406, 506 IPC & Sec 3 & 4 Dowry Prohibition Act-1961.

During the further course of the Investigation, since the prima-

facie offence is proved against the accused A-1. A-2 & A-4 on

23.09.2021 the LW-07 has Register post under sub-section (1) of

Section 41 A of Criminal Procedure Code to them, but A-1, A-2 & A-

4 was Rejected the Post, after that A-1 received anticipatory bail

Hon'ble court of 5 additional district and sessions judge at Bhongir

Cri.M.P.No.410/2021 on 27-11-2021 A-3 & A-5 on 02.11.2021 the

LW-07 has served the notices them under sub-section (1) of Section

41.A of Criminal Procedure Code with directions to appear before me.

Accordingly, on 03.12.2021, the accused A-3 & A-5 have complied

with the instructions of LW-07 by appearing before her. As such, as

per the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and since the offence is

having the punishment of less than seven years Imprisonment, the LW.

07 has served notices under sub-section (3) of section 41 A of Criminal

Procedure to the accused A-3 & A-5 directing them to appear before

the Hon'ble trial court as when they received the summons.

10

Investigation done so far in this case it well established that

LW-1 Panthagadda Premalatha is the complainant & victim legally

wedded of the A-1 is resident of H No 1-11-14. Near By Meg Market.

Jangaon (V&M&D), Present at Yadagirigutta (V&M). Yadadri-

Bhongir (Dist), the LW-2 S Potta Chandralah, the Lw-3. Smt Potta

Bharathamma are parents respectively of victim and circumstant

witness to the incident, the LW.4, Sri Eppialapally Narendar, the LW-

5 Sri Bollepally Janardhan are panchayath elders & circumstantial

witness to the incident. Whereas the accused A-1 Panthagadda Shymul

Suresh is the son of A-2, the A-2. Panthagadda Bharathi, are resident

of Thiruvikanagar. Madhaliya Pet. Pondicherry, the A-3 /Geddam

Jhand. Small Mother-in-law of A-1, the A-4 Panthagadda Sudheer, the

AS Geddam Sathyakama Jabal @Amancherla Jabali are Brothers of

A-1 are resident of Jawaharagar, Hyderabad.

The LW-1 marriage was performed on 17.08.2016 with the A-

1 as per customs prevailing in their community and the presence of

their relatives. At the time of LW-1 marriage. her in-laws.

Demand Rs. 30,00,000/-Cash for dowry, in which, LW-2 & 3

have gave Rs. 10,00,000/- cash, 15 Thule's Gold to them as dowry,

After marriage the couple had lead happy conjugal life of 5 Months.

thereafter A-1 suspecting the Lw-1 character and also used to

harassed mentally and physically to bring Additional Rs.10.00.000/-

dowry from her parent's house otherwise A-1 do the 2 marriage with

other women, A-2 to A-5 are supported to A-1 Due to such harassment,

the LWs 26 3 was placed the matter before the elders LW1-4 & 5 who

are circumstantial witness & Panchayath elders. On request of the

LWs 2 & 3, the elders held a panchayath 2018 May month 2 times at

Chennai, 2018 July month one time at Hyderabad A-3 House, 2019

February Month one time. 2019 August Month one time convinced

them, A-1 to A-5 says in front of panchayath elders take good care of

Lw-1. but A-1 to A 5) are again harassed her. Later 2 years ago A1 to

A-5 beaten the Lw-1 and necked out in the house to bring additional

Rs. 10,00,000/ dowry if not bring the amount they would kill the LW-

1. Later Lw-1 filed a complaint against them in Woman PS Bhongir.

Police are given counselling them, but A1 to A 5 did not change their

· attitude. Thus the A1 to A5 noted in Col. No 12 of this charge sheet

committed an offence punishable U/s 498-A. 406, 506 IPC & Sec 3 &

4 DP Act.”

19. Perusal of the charge-sheet would show that the investigating

agency had relied on the statements of the complainant, her parents and

two other witnesses who are Panchayat elders to substantiate the

allegations. As far as the statement of the complainant is concerned, it is

in the form of the complaint which has been already reproduced

hereinabove. We will now examine whether any new or fresh evidence has

11

been revealed in the course of the investigation from the examination of

other witnesses, namely, the complainant's parents and the two panchayat

witnesses.

20. The statements of the parents are carbon copy of each other and as

such we may refer to the statement of the father only, relevant portions of

which read as follows: -

“I am resident of Yadadri Bhuvangiri district, Bibinagar,

Brahmanapalli road. We married our daughter Premalatha in 2016 to

Panthagadda SamuelSuresh, s/o Janardhan Rao, resident of

Pondicherry. Our son-in-law works as a Doctor. At the time of

marriage, the Mother-in-law of my daughter demanded Rs.30,00,000

cash as dowry and we gave Rs. 10,00,000/ cash and 15 sovereigns of

gold as per her wish. Five months after marriage, my daughter came

to our house and told me: that her husband-was suspecting her with

every person she spoke further he told her that he doesn't like her as

she did not get the dowry as demanded by them and asked her to get

additional dowry of Rs. 10,00,000/ for his needs or else asked her to

leave him so that, he can marry again. He was harassing my daughter

mentally and physically. My daughter's Mother-in-law Bharathi, my

daughter's mother-in-law's younger sister Geddam Jhansi and her son

Geddam Sathyacama, my daughter's husband's brother Sudhir, Jabali,

all of them supported my daughter's husband and told that as she

brought less dowry they warned her to listen to her husband or else

they will kill her. They used to say insulting words and used to abuse

her and beat her. In this regard we held panchayat with elders. When

the elders convinced them, they used to say they will look after her well

and taken her with them, but used to harass her again. These type of

panchayats took place 4 times in Chennai and 5 times in Hyderabad.

Approximately about 2 years ago my daughter came to our house and

told me that when she questioned why they were doing like this, they

said, how dare you to raise your voice against us and all of them

together abused her and beat her and pushed her out of house. They

threatened her saying that, if she comes home without getting money

of Rs.10,00,000/- they will kill her. After that, my daughter has given

a complaint against them in Bhuvanagiri Mahila Police Station and

the police called them and counselled them, but there was no change

in them is what he stated.”

(emphasis added)

21. The other evidence is in the form of the statements of the two

panchayat witnesses, namely, Sri Eppala Pally Narendar and Sri Bollepally

12

Janardhan. It is also noticed that their statements too are reproduction of

the other and as such examination of only one of the statements will

suffice, for which we may examine the statement of Sri Eppala Pally

Narendar, relevant portions of which read as follows: -

“I am a resident of Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri district…….After 5 months of

their marriage Chandraiah came to me and told me that his daughter

came home and told him that her husband is suspecting her with every

person she spoke Further he told he doesn't like her, as she did not get

the dowry that they asked for he asked her to get additional dowry of

Rs 10,00,000 for his needs or else asked her to leave him so that he

can marry again. He used to harass mentally and physically.

Premalatha's Mother-in-law Bharathi, her Mother-in-law's younger

sister Geddam Jhansi and her son Geddam Sathyacama, Jabali, her

husband's brother Subir, all of them together supported her husband

and told her that she brought less dowry and warned her to listen to

her husband or else they will kill her. They used to say insulting words

and used abuse her and beat her Premalatha's father told me that in

this regard, they were holding a panchayat with elders and asked me

to come an panchayat elder. Then I along with a few other elders went

to the panchayat. We told them to be good and they said we will look

after Premalatha well and has taken her with them, but again harassed

her in the same way. In May 2018, one time in July 2018, one time in

February 2019, one time in 2019 August, in panchayats were held in

Chennai and Hyderabad (Jhansi's house). In the panchayat all the

above persons, collectively told that, if they give the dowry they asked

for only, they will take Premalatha or else we will get their boy married

again. 1 came to know that at about 2 years ago all of them together

abused and beat Premalatha and pushed her out of house and

threatened her to get Rs.5,00,000 and then only they will allow her

enter the house or else they will kill her-is the statement given by him”

22. When we minutely examine the statements of the father and the

mother of the complainant, what can be seen is that as far as the demand

for dowry of Rs. 30 Lakhs and giving of Rs. 10 lakhs and 15 sovereigns

of gold at the time of marriage of the complainant is concerned, it can be

said that it was within their direct knowledge. Being the father and

mother, the complainant daughter would naturally convey to them what

had transpired with her in relation to her husband and family. Thus, as

regards other allegations of harassment, the same were informed to them

by their daughter but they were not witness to the same.

13

It may also be noted that as regards the alleged act of beating of

the complainant by her husband and other relatives mentioned by the

parents, the complainant herself does not mention so in her complaints.

Therefore, this allegation of beating of the complainant is something

which has been added by the father and the mother of the complainant

though they did not themselves witness the same.

23. As regards the statement of Sri Eppala Pally Narender, the

Panchayat elder, regarding the incidents of harassment which are the

subject matter of the complaint, the same has been stated by him after

he was informed by the father of the complainant. Thus, his evidence

is nothing but hearsay evidence. As far as the statement regarding

holding of panchayat at Hyderabad and Chennai is concerned, where

the family members of the husband had allegedly stated that if the

dowry is not given as demanded, the complainant would not be taken

back and they would get the husband married again, the said statement

is of a very generalised nature and vague in the sense that it does not

mention exactly when and in which Panchayat the aforesaid incident

took place and what roles the appellants played. Further, it is noticed

that this witness as well as the other Panchayat witness are residents of

Bhongir which is in Telangana. It is not stated how they were also

present in the Panchayat meetings held in Chennai.

The aforesaid Panchayat witness mentioned about the alleged

demand of dowry and threat meted out to the complainant of being

killed if the demand for dowry of Rs. 5 lakhs was not met, and about

the threat of the complainant being thrown out of the matrimonial

house, but the said statement is based on the information provided to

him by the father of the complainant and is not based on personal

knowledge of the witness.

14

24. When the aforesaid statements are examined, it is evident that

there certainly are specific allegations made against the husband of the

complainant, his mother (mother-in-law of the complainant) about

demand of dowry and harassment meted out to the complainant.

However, as regards the present appellants, the allegation against them

is that they along with the other accused family members used to

pressurize the complainant to act according to her husband and her

mother-in-law’s wishes. Apart from this generalised allegation, there

are no specific or overt acts attributed to the appellants which would

tantamount to acts of cruelty or physical or mental harassment or being

active participants in the demands for dowry.

25. From the above what is clearly evident is that the statements of

the witnesses though support the case of the complainant, do not

disclose any new fact or provide better particulars beyond what had

already been stated by the complainant. As far as the present appellants

are concerned, these witnesses including the complainant merely make

generalised allegations without any specific evidence against them.

26. Thus, if the evidence of the complainant as well as the witnesses

are taken at their face value, what can be said to have been made out

against the appellants is that the appellants and other members of the

family used to pressurize the complainant to act according to the wishes

of her husband and mother-in-law which is a very generalised

allegation devoid of specific particulars.

27. As mentioned above, the statements of the mother and the father

of the complainant as annexed in the charge-sheet are carbon copies.

Similarly, the same is in respect of the statements of the other two

independent witnesses, Epalla Pally Narender and Bollepally

15

Janardhan. Under these circumstances, discussed above, we have no

hesitation to say that the identical statements of the witnesses do not

inspire confidence of this Court for continuation of the criminal

proceedings with regard to the present appellants.

28. Coming to the other case relating to domestic violence pending

before the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhongir

in DVC No. 25 of 2021, the same is based on the second complaint

dated 20.09.2021 filed by the complainant, relevant portions of which

read as follows:-

“xxxxxx

On 17.08.2016, I was married to Samuel Suresh….

After the, marriage for a period of 5 months or so, my husband has

taken care of me properly. Thereafter 1. My husband Samuel Suresh,

2. My mother-in-law Bharati Janardhan. 3. Younger sister of my

mother-in law Jhansi Geddam 4. My brother-in-law Pathagadda

Sudheer 5. Son of my mother-in-law's sister Geddam Sathyakama

Jabill, all the above referred persons, with a plan, started harassing

me physically and mentally and demanded to get additional dowry of

Rs. 10,00,000/-. When I informed the same thing to my parents, my

parents organized a panchayat before my family members and elders.

My husband agreed to take care of me properly, before the elders, but

as usual after some days he started harassing me along with his family

members. They made me to pay the house rent. At times my husband

stayed away from the house during nights. My husband used to tell

each and everything to my mother-in-law and he used to act as per her

directions. Further my mother-in-law used to pressurize me to

purchase a new house and a car. They also tried to get a false report

from the psychiatrist, by taking an appointment with the doctor.

Thereafter they forced me to address a letter stating that, I was

responsible for all the mistakes happened in our marital life. They have

taken money from me and have spent for their personal uses.

I submit that when meeting was held at the residence of younger sister

of my mother-in-law, my husband promised before my parents that he

will take care of me properly. After that when I holded his hand, he

pushed me down and used to scold me for every small issue. Further

he asked not to touch his clothes and go away from the kitchen. Once

he tried to burn his socks. because I washed them. My husband has not

supported me, even when requested him, that there is a problem in my

16

job and finally lost the job. My parents have invited my husband for

my brother's marriage, but he refused to attend the marriage and used

to pressurize me to sign the letter. He used to tell bad about me to his

friends and they used to call me and asked me to leave my husband.

One day, a girl called me and said that my husband is having a

girlfriend earlier and now she has taken divorce from her husband and

therefore he is planning to marry her. They have tortured me in many

ways, but I patiently tolerated their ill-treatment for a smooth

marriage, but he has not understood me. He tortured me mentally by

scolding me and he used to go out with his friends and used to come at

3 or 4 in the early morning. On 17.10.20 at around 10:00 pm he necked

me out of the house, therefore I request you to take legal action on my

husband Samuel Suresh and other family members for torturing me

physically and mentally. Further I request you to take action as per

Domestic Violence and see that protection order and residence order

is provided in my favor. Further, see that every month Rs.30,000/- is

given to me, for my maintenance.”

(emphasis added)

The said second complaint is more or less the reiteration of the

allegations made in her first complaint with some additional incidents.

Perusal of the second complaint shows that no specific allegations

about harassment have been made against the appellants.

29. As far as the allegation of the complainant of being thrown out

of her matrimonial house on 17.10.2020 is concerned, she made the

specific allegation only against her husband and she did not attribute

any role of the appellants except for making a general allegation of

harassing her physically and mentally without specifying the actual role

of the appellants.

30. It may be also noted that in the second complaint, the

complainant had specifically stated that when a meeting was held at the

residence of the younger sister of her mother-in-law (Appellant No.1),

her husband promised before her parents that he would take care of her

properly. This statement shows that the Appellant No. 1 was trying to

mediate and broker peace between the complainant, her husband and

17

her mother-in-law, which is inconsistent with the allegation that the

appellants were pressurising the complainant in support of the mother-

in-law and the husband.

31. Invoking criminal process is a serious matter with penal

consequences involving coercive measures, which can be permitted

only when specific act(s) which constitute offences punishable under

the penal code or any other penal statute are alleged or attributed to the

accused and a prima facie case is made out. It applies with equal force

when criminal laws are invoked in domestic disputes. Criminalising

domestic disputes without specific allegations and credible materials to

support the same may have disastrous consequences for the institution

of family, which is built on the premise of love, affection, cordiality

and mutual trust. Institution of family constitutes the core of human

society. Domestic relationships, such as those between family

members, are guided by deeply ingrained social values and cultural

expectations. These relationships are often viewed as sacred,

demanding a higher level of respect, commitment, and emotional

investment compared to other social or professional associations. For

the aforesaid reason, preservation of family relationship has always

been emphasised upon. Thus, when family relationships are sought to

be brought within the ambit of criminal proceedings rupturing the

family bond, courts should be circumspect and judicious, and should

allow invocation of criminal process only when there are specific

allegations with supporting materials which clearly constitute criminal

offences.

32. We have to keep in mind that in the context of matrimonial

disputes, emotions run high, and as such in the complaints filed alleging

harassment or domestic violence, there may be a tendency to implicate

18

other members of the family who do not come to the rescue of the

complainant or remain mute spectators to any alleged incident of

harassment, which in our view cannot by itself constitute a criminal act

without there being specific acts attributed to them. Further, when

tempers run high and relationships turn bitter, there is also a propensity

to exaggerate the allegations, which does not necessarily mean that

such domestic disputes should be given the colour of criminality.

33. It goes without saying that genuine cases of cruelty and violence

in domestic sphere, which do happen, ought to be handled with utmost

sensitivity. Domestic violence typically happens within the four walls

of the house and not in the public gaze. Therefore, such violence is not

noticed by public at large, except perhaps by the immediate neighbours.

Thus, providing visible evidence by the victim of domestic violence

may not be easily forthcoming and producing direct evidence may be

hard and arduous, which does not necessarily mean that domestic

violence does not occur. In fact, to deal with this pernicious

phenomenon, stringent statutes like Protection from Domestic Violence

Act, 2005, have been enacted with very expansive meaning and scope

of what amounts to domestic violence. Since, violence perpetrated

within the domestic sphere by close relatives is now criminalised

entailing serious consequences on the perpetrators, the courts have to

be careful while dealing with such cases by examining whether there

are specific allegations with instances against the perpetrators and not

generalised allegations. The purpose and mandate of the law to protect

the victims of domestic violence is of paramount importance, and as

such, a balance has to be struck by ensuring that while perpetrators are

brought to book, all the family members or relatives are not

indiscriminately brought within the criminal net in a sweeping manner.

19

34. For a matrimonial relationship which is founded on the basis of

cordiality and trust to turn sour to an extent to make a partner to hurl

allegations of domestic violence and harassment against the other

partner, would normally not happen at the spur of the moment and such

acrimonious relationship would develop only in course of time.

Accordingly, such a situation would be the culmination of a series of

acts which turns, otherwise an amicable relationship, into a fractured

one. Thus, in such cases involving allegations of domestic violence or

harassment, there would normally be a series of offending acts, which

would be required to be spelt out by the complainant against the

perpetrators in specific terms to rope such perpetrators in the criminal

proceedings sought to be initiated against them. Thus, mere general

allegation of harassment without pointing out the specifics against such

perpetrators would not suffice, as is the case in respect of the present

appellants.

35. We are, thus, of the view that in criminal cases relating to

domestic violence, the complaints and charges should be specific, as

far as possible, as against each and every member of the family who are

accused of such offences and sought to be prosecuted, as otherwise, it

may amount to misuse of the stringent criminal process by

indiscriminately dragging all the members of the family. There may be

situations where some of the family members or relatives may turn a

blind eye to the violence or harassment perpetrated to the victim, and

may not extend any helping hand to the victim, which does not

necessarily mean that they are also perpetrators of domestic violence,

unless the circumstances clearly indicate their involvement and

instigation. Hence, implicating all such relatives without making

specific allegations and attributing offending acts to them and

20

proceeding against them without prima facie evidence that they were

complicit and had actively collaborated with the perpetrators of

domestic violence, would amount to abuse of the process of law.

36. Our observations, however, should not be generalised to mean

that relatives cannot be brought under the purview of the aforesaid

penal provisions when they have actively participated in inflicting

cruelty on the daughter-in-law/victim. What needs to be assessed is

whether such allegations are genuine with specific criminal role

assigned to such members of the family or whether it is merely a spill

over and side-effect of a matrimonial discord and allegations made by

an emotionally disturbed person. Each and every case of domestic

violence will thus depend on the peculiar facts obtaining in each case.

37. In the present case, the charges against the accused including the

appellants are sought to be substantiated based on the statements of the

complainant, her parents and two panchayat elders.

As discussed above, the statements of the two elders are based

on the information provided by the father of the complainant. These

two witnesses did not witness any of the incidents of physical

harassment by the appellants. Though they were present in the

panchayat to resolve the dispute between the parties, their account of

harassment of the complainant is based on what they had learnt from

the father of the complainant. As regards their knowledge of demand

of dowry by the appellants, the same is quite vague and without specific

details.

Similarly, the statements of the parents of the complainant are

based on the information provided by the complainant/daughter. There

is also nothing on record to show that the parents witnessed any of the

21

incidents of physical harassment of the complainant at the instance of

the appellants.

Thus, the evidence against the appellants in these proceedings

boils down to the evidence of the complainant. The complainant in her

complaints as mentioned above, did not assign any specific role to the

appellants concerning the demands of dowry and physical and mental

harassment of the complainant, except for making a sweeping

allegation without specific details. The evidence of the complainant is

the foundation for the criminal proceedings against the appellants. As

discussed above, the evidence of the other witnesses do not disclose

anything new as far as the appellants are concerned.

In our considered view, the aforesaid materials do not constitute

a prima facie case against the appellants for continuing the criminal

proceedings against them in the trial.

38. We have also noted that the appellants do not live with the

principal accused. While the marriage took place in Pondicherry and

the complainant lived with her husband and mother-in-law in Chennai,

the appellants are residents of Hyderabad. As the appellants do not stay

together with the complainant and her husband and mother-in-law, to

make the appellants as co-accused for alleged offences committed in

the matrimonial house of the complainant on the basis of very

generalised allegations does not appear to be tenable.

39. Under these circumstances, for the reasons discussed above, we

are satisfied that the appellants have been able to make out a case for

interference in these proceedings qua the present appellants as in our

opinion no prima facie case has been made out against the appellants

to continue with the criminal proceedings against them and allowing

22

these to continue would amount to abuse of the process of the law.

40. Accordingly, we allow both the present Criminal Appeals as

below:

(i) The impugned judgement and order dated 04.04.2022

passed by the Ld. Single Bench of the High Court for the State

of Telangana in Criminal Petition No. 3105 of 2022 is set aside

and the criminal proceedings in “C.C. No. 46 of 2022” pending

before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhongir

under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is

quashed qua the two appellants, Geddam Jhansi and Geddam

Sathyakama Jabali.

(ii) The impugned judgement and order dated 03.02.2022

passed by the Ld. Single Bench of the High Court for the State

of Telangana in Criminal Petition No. 1002 of 2022 is set aside

and the criminal proceedings in DVC No. 25 of 2021 pending

before the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate, First

Class, Bhongir is quashed qua the appellant, Geddam Jhansi.

This is having regard to the criminal proceeding against her

being quashed as above and as identical allegation (paragraph 28

above) are made against her in DVC No. 25 of 2021, and in

exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of

India. This is also by bearing in mind the relationship of the

appellant Geddam Jhansi to the complainant, being the latters’s

mother-in-law’s sister.

41. However, it is made clear that the observations and findings

recorded herein by this Court are in the respect of the allegations made

23

against the present appellants and the same will have no bearing on the

criminal proceedings against the other accused persons and the trial

courts will not be swayed by the observations and findings recorded

herein by this Court and the trial courts are expected to proceed with

the criminal proceedings pending against the other accused persons

after proper appreciation of evidence and in accordance with law.

……………………………J.

(B. V. NAGARATHNA)

………………………………………………J.

(NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)

New Delhi;

February 07, 2025.