Shashank Babu Chinta Venkata v. The State of Telangana
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-01-23. Shashank Babu Chinta Venkata v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on...
Judgment text
134441 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EAOA CRIM INAL PETITIO N NO: 7588 oF 2025 Between: 1 Shashank Babu Chinta Venkata, S/o. Chinta Venkata prakash, Age. 38 Years, Occ. Private Employee (Male), R/o. H. No. 3-1'259, Teachers Club Road, Korutla Proper and Mandal, Jagtial District. ... Accused No. 1/Husband 2. Paramkusham Shobha Rani, W/o. CV prakash, Age. 6i years, Occ. Government Teacher, R/o. H. No. S-1-25A, Teachers Club Road, Korufla Proper and Mandal, Jagtial District. ... Accused No. 2/Mother in law 3 Chinta Venkata Prakash, S/o. Late. Narsaiah, Age. 69 years, Occ. Retired Employee, R/ o. H. No. 5-1-258, Teachers Club Road, Korutla proper and Mandal, Jagtial District. ... Accused No. 3/Father in law 4. Chinta Venkata Priyanka, Wo. TV Siddharth, Age. 40 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H. No.
1-1-813, Camp Road, Korutla Proper and Mandal, Jagtial Diskict ... Accused No. 4/Sister in la Petitioners/Accused Nos. i to 4 AND 1. The State of Telangana, , through S. H. O. , W. p. S. East Zone, Hyderabad District, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad ... Respondent 2. Vunjili Vidya, D/o. V. Srinivas, Age. 35 Years, Occ. Unemployed, R/ o. H. No. 6-1-151, Ganga Residency, Flat No. 102, Chitkatguda, Hyderabad, Ceil No. 9014672150 ... RespondenUDe-facto Complainant Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandutn of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the charge sheet in C. C. No. 15217 of 2024, on the file of Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad. l. A.
NO: 2 OF 2r)25 Petition undt:r Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the ltlemorandun of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtmay be pleased to stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners/ Accused Nos. 1 to 4 in C. C. lJo. 15217 of 2024, on the file of Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad. l. A. NO: 3 OF 2025 BETWEEN: Vunjili Vidya D/o. V. srinivas, Age. 35 Years, occ. Unemployed, R/ o. H. No. 6- 1-151, Gan,J? Residency, Flat No. 102, Chilkalguda, Hyderabad, Cell No. 9014672150. . Petitioner/2nd Respondent AND Shashank Babu Chinta Venkata, S/0. Chinta Venkata prakash, Age. 38 Years, Occ. Private Employee (Male), R/o. H. No. 5-1-258, Teachers Club Road, Korutla Proper and Mandal, Jagtial District 2. Parankusham Shobha Rani, Wo. CV Prakash, Age. 61 years, Occ. Government reacher, R/o. H. No. 5-1-258, Teachers club Road, Korufla Prope- and ltlandal, Jagtial District 3.
chinta Venkata Prakash, S/o. Late. Narsaiah, Age. 6g years, occ. Retired Emplcyee, R/ o. H. No. 5-1-258, Teachers Club Road, Korufla proper and Mandal, Jagtial District 4. Chinta Venkata Priyanka, Wo. TV Siddharth, Age. 40 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H. No. 1-1-813, Camp Road, Korufla proper and Mandal, Jagtia District ... Res pondents/Petiti oners 5. The State of Telangana, , through S. H. O. , W. P. S. East Zone, Hyderabad District, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad ... Res pondenURespondent Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim stay order dated 25l06l2125in lA. no. 2 of 2025 in Crlp. No. 7S88 of 2025.
This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K Venumadhav, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of Respondent No. 1 and of sri D pradeep Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the fotlowing: ORDER Crl. P. No. 7588 ot2025 IN THI= HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA -, AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVIEADA CRf MINAL PETITION No. 7588 OF 2025 DATE: 23-0'l-2026 Between Shashank Babu Chinta Venkata and three others .. . Petitioners And The State ol Telangana, through S. H O. , W. P. S. East Zone, Hyderabad District, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad and another ... Respondents ORDER: This Oriminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos. 1 to 4 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C. C. No.
15217 of 2024 on the file of learned Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Section 498A l. P. C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Heard Sri K. Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioners, sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, leai'necl Additional public prosecutor I ) i Crl. P. No. 7588 of 2025 for respondent No. 1-state and sri D. pradeep Kumar, tearned counsel for respondent No. 2. 3. The case of prosecution is that the petitioners-accused Nos. 1 to 4 have harassed respondent No. 2-de facto complainant for want of additional dowry. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner No. 1 is the husband, petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the parents-in-law and petitioner No. 4 is the sister-in-law of respondent No. 2-de facto complainant.
He further submitted that the petitioners never harassed the de facto complainant in any manner and that the present complaint is filed with all false allegations. He further submitted that within 20 days of marriage, petitioner No. 1 and the de facto complainant left to u. s. A. and rived there; that all the incidents of harassment are alleged to have occurred in U. s. A. ; that therefore, registration of present crime in lndia, without there being any prior sanction, is illegal; and that the complaint itself is not maintainabte. He further submitted that without sanction under section 1gg cr. P. c. , continuation of proceedings against the petitioners would be an abuse of process of law. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings in the present c. c. against the petitioners herein. Crl. P. No. 7588 of 2025 Learned coLnsel, in support of his Submissions, has relied upon the judgments of the Honourable Apex court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana lnd others v.
State of Telangana and anotherl, Geddam Jhransi and another v. State of Telangana and others2 and Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana and another3' 5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that respondent No. 2 has ample evidence to prove the case against the petitioners tterein. He further submitted that not only at U'S'A', but there. are also specific incidents of harassment, which took place in lndia and tTat respondent No. 2 has the bank account statement, which reveals that amounts were transferred to the account of petitioner Nlo. 1 by the de facto complainant. He further submitted that petitioner No. 1 got addicted to gambling and to fulfill his lust facto complainant and greed lbr money, he started harassing the de in many'/vays. Petitioner No. 1 also insisted the de facto complainant to have physical relationship with one of his friends; that petitiorrer No. 1 used to have unnatural sex with the de facto complainarrt; and that no woman would bear such type of harassment.
He further submitted that the said friend of petitioner LawSuit(SC) I 108 '2024 2 2025 LawSuir(SC) 169 3 2024 Lawsuit (SC) 392 :l ,:rll 't :ri. ,',1, - Crl. P. No. 7588 of 2025 No. 1, by name Anil Rambha, has touched the de factocomplainant inappropriately. He further submitted that the other petitioners have also harassed the de facto complainant while she was in lndia. He further submitted that the chird of the de facto comprainant and petitioner No. 1, is suffering with Autism and for the treatment of the child, the de facto complainant stayed in lndia for one year, during which period she was put to untotd harassment by all the petitioners herein. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the criminar petition. 6. Perused the record. 7. There are specific instances of harassment narrated by the de facto complainant. lt is alleged that after marriage, petitioner No. 1 started taunting the de facto comprainant on various things such as cooking and other daily affairs.
He used to comment on her way of dressing by comparing with other women and that she is not able to cope up with the US life and is not meeting his expectations. He never allowed her to talk to her friends. lt is further alteged that petitioner No. 't got addicted to gambling and used to demand her to pay huge amounts and used to hit her and pinch her. lt is further alteged that their kid was diagnosed with Autism and he needed somg extra care and attention and so, she switched over to a new ,t. Crl. P. No. 7588 of2025 job, her pa'/ was increased and thus, petitioner No. 1 again started demanding more amounts to meet his gambling requirements. lt is further alleged that petitioner No. 1 has asked her to move close with one of his, friends, by name Anil Rambha, who touched her inappropriately in one of the parties in January,2023. When she complained to petitioner No. 1, he asked her to adjust and to sleep with the said person.
lt is further alleged that few months thereafter, she came :o lndia to attend her brother's marriage and stayed in lndia for the treatment of her son and that petitioner No. 1 also came down to lnclia on his mother's retirement function, which fell on July 31, 2024 arrd that during their stay at lndia, he harassed her when they lived at 'Air BnB' in Himayathnagar and demanded her an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/-. There are also specific allegations of harassmen't against the other petitioners, while the de facto complainant was in lndia. Thus, the allegations prima facie point out the offences alleged against the petitioners herein. The offences alleged are serious in nature. B. ln Dara Lakhsmi Narayana's case (supra 1), it was held by the Honourable Apex Court that if there are omnibus allegations l [i Crl. P. No. 7588 of 2025 against the accused and no specific incidents of harassment are made out, the proceedings need to be quashed. lt was herd that "25.
A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. lt is a well-recognized fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. such generalized and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularized allegations cannot form the basis for crirninal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. " 9. ln Geddam Jhansi's case (supra 2), at was held that criminar proceedings against relatives in domestic violence/dowry cases can be quashed if the allegations against them are vague, general, or lack specific evidence of active involvement or instigation.
Mere awareness or non-intervention does not amount to culpability. courts must guard against misuse of legal provisions to prevent harassment of innocent family members. 10. ln Achin Gupta's case (supra 3), it was held by the Honourable Apex Court that: "2O. lt is now well settled that the power under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution, only where such exercise is justified by the ,i. r crr. P. No. 7588 "Fff;i tests laid down in the Section itself. lt is also well settled that S,ection 482 of the Cr. P. C. does not confer. any new power on the High Court but only saves the inherent power, which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Crimirral Procedure Code. There are three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to preverrt abuse of the process of Court, and (iii) to othenryise secure the ends of justice. 35.
ln one of the recent pronouncements of this Court in Mahnrood Ali & Ors. v. State of U. P. & Ors. , 2023 Online SC 950, authored by one of us (J. B Pardiwala, J. ), the legal princil>le applicable apropos Section 482 of the CrPC was examined. Therein, it was observed that when an accused come:i before the High Court, invoking either the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC or the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed, essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive of wreaking veng€)ance, then in such circumstances, the High Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely.
lt was further observed that it will not be enough for (lourt the to look into the averments made in the FIR/c,rmplaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the nr:cessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are Cisclosed or not 3s, in frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the court owes a duty to look into many other attencling circumstances emerging from the record of the i I i ,,;r' Crl. P. No. 7588 of2025 case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection, to try and read between the lines. " 11. But, in the present case, there are specific allegations of harassment against the petitioners herein, which are serious in nature. Therefore, the above cited decisions cannot be applied to the present case. 12. The petitioners' counsel contended that prior sanction under section 1BB cr. P. c. is compulsory, as the offences are alleged to have been committed at U. s. A.
But the ailegations point out that certain incidents are alleged to have occurred in lndia atso. The Honourable supreme court in Thota venkateswarlu v. . 13. sfafe of Andhra Pradesh through principar secretary and anothera, held that even if one incident has occurred in lndia, there was no requirement to take previous sanction from the central Government under section 188 cr. p. c. , for trial of all the other incidents outside lndia. The Honourable supreme court, while analysing the provisions of section 188 cr. p. c. , has held that the Section gets attracted only when the entirety of offence is committed a lzor r; g scc s27 t I /r" ll Crt. P. No. 7588 of 2025 ; outside lndia and as such going with normal principle, if the offence was not committed in its entirety outside India, the matter would not come within the scope of Section 188 Cr. P. C. and there was no necessity of any sanction as mandated by the Proviso to Section 188 Cr. P. C.
Thus, when a part of offence occurs in lndia, no such sanction urrder Section 188 Cr. P. C. is required. 14. ln the present case, part of the offences are alleged to have occurred while respondent No. 2-de facto complainant was staying in I I lndia. Thei'efore, the prior sanction under Section 1BB Cr. P. C. is not necessary 15. The contention of the petitioners' counsel is that all the allegations are false. lt is a triable issue. The truth or othenruise in the allegal:ions can be culled out only after a full-fledged trial Therefore, it is not proper to quash the proceedings in the present C. C. against the petitioners herein. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is deemed appropriate to dispense with the attendance of the petitioners herein before the trial Court. 16. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of dispensing with the atlendance of the petitioners before the trial Court provided t2 ETD,J Crl. P. No.
7588 of 2025 they are represented by a counsel before the trial court on every date of hearing and shall appear before the trial Court whenever their presence is required during the course of trial. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed ASSIS ,^^? f i? 8,:? '-'[A //TRUE COPYII ECT'ON OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon, ble Smt Justice (For Her Devi LqdJsn ip's Eada kind To, -The 1. Xil Additic chief Metropolitan 2 11 lR Magistrate, i;;;J'on'' at Nampauy, Hyderabad 3. The Under Sec union or lndia, Ministrv or Law, Jusrice and company 4 +f::;,fi. -;ffil"'' '+. I ne Secretarv {{yssates Associat rerangan", Hish iirt, corrt court ror iiriiiffi#ifi;. T;:Jj the state or i ce s tatio iJr n, H ydera b ad i i!! iltt:',niif*ffi ;pi r"ri 7 one cc to srio311""nli;;:;:;3:",[3ilrr. ,j", F'ddit&l#n H'g;;;,;? , the state or re,ansana, ; #iJF':. '"'rYf ADK/BA tu J HIGH COURT DATED: i2310112026 THES ORDER (-) z 1 3 i{r,I iq CRLP. No. 7588 of 2025 't t DISPOSII. IG OF THE CRLP a b b
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.