GEDDAM JHANSI & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS.

                   [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1 : 2025 INSC 160

                        Geddam Jhansi & Anr.
                                   v.
                     The State of Telangana & Ors.
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 609 of 2025)
                              07 February 2025
[B.V. Nagarathna and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh,* JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Whether the criminal proceedings against the appellant(s) under
       Sections 498A, 506, Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4,
       Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961; Protection of Women from Domestic
       Violence Act, 2005 ought to be quashed.

                                  Headnotes†
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Quashing – Penal
       Code, 1860 – ss.498A, 506 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 –
       ss.3, 4 – Complainant made specific allegations against her
       husband and her mother-in-law for demand of dowry and
       harassment – However, as regards the appellants (complainant’s
       mother-in-law’s younger sister and her son), the allegation was
       that they pressurized her to act according to her husband and
       her mother-in-law’s wishes – High Court declined to quash
       criminal proceedings against the appellants – Challenge to:
       Held: Impugned judgements set aside – Charges against the
       accused including the appellants were sought to be substantiated
       based on the statements of the complainant, her parents and two
       panchayat elders – Complainant in her complaints did not assign
       any specific role to the appellants concerning cruelty, the demands
       of dowry or her physical and mental harassment except for making
       a sweeping allegation without specific details – Nothing on record
       to show that the parents or the two witnesses witnessed any of
       the incidents of physical harassment of the complainant at the
       instance of the appellants – Statements of the Panchayat elder is
       based on the information provided by the complainant’s father and
       is hearsay evidence – No prima facie case made out against the
       appellants for continuing the criminal proceedings against them
       in the trial – Pending criminal proceedings quashed qua the two
       appellants – Constitution of India – Article 142. [Paras 37, 23, 40]
* Author
2                                                          [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


     Matrimonial/domestic disputes – Criminalisation of domestic
     disputes, effect on the institution of family – Tendency
     to implicate family members/relatives – Duty of Court,
     discussed – In criminal cases of domestic violence, complaints
     and charges to be specific. [Paras 31-35]

                             Case Law Cited
     State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. [1992] Supp.
     3 SCR 735 : (1992) 1 Supp. SCC 335; Anand Kumar Mohatta
     v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2018] 13 SCR 1028 : (2019) 11 SCC
     706 – referred to.

                               List of Acts
     Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860; Dowry
     Prohibition Act, 1961; Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
     Act, 2005.

                            List of Keywords
     Quashing; Cruelty; Demand for dowry; Physical and mental
     Harassment; Domestic violence; Harassment; Criminal intimidation;
     Panchayat witnesses; Identical statements of the witnesses;
     Generalised allegations; Matrimonial/domestic disputes; Criminal
     cases relating to domestic violence; Tendency to implicate family
     members/relatives; Institution of family; Abuse of the process of
     the law; Charge-sheet; Hearsay evidence.

                           Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
     609 of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 04.04.2022 of the High Court
     for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in CRLP No. 3105 of 2022
     With
     Criminal Appeal No. 610 of 2025

                        Appearances for Parties
     Nitin Tambwekar, Seshatalpa Sai Bandaru, Shaik Mohammad
     Haneef, Abdul Mannan, Irshad Ahmad, Advs. for the Appellants.
     Ms. Devina Sehgal, Vineet George, Beno Bencigar, Parijat Kishore,
     Advs. for the Respondents.
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                           3

        Geddam Jhansi & Anr. v. The State of Telangana & Ors.


                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                Judgment

     Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J.

1.   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
     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.
4                                                            [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


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 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
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                           5

        Geddam Jhansi & Anr. v. The State of Telangana & Ors.


     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.
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
6                                                     [2025] 3 S.C.R.

               Digital Supreme Court Reports


     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.
          (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
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                        7

        Geddam Jhansi & Anr. v. The State of Telangana & Ors.


                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 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
8                                                     [2025] 3 S.C.R.

               Digital Supreme Court Reports


     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
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                              9

        Geddam Jhansi & Anr. v. The State of Telangana & Ors.


           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) 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
10                                                         [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                    Digital Supreme Court Reports


          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 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
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                          11

        Geddam Jhansi & Anr. v. The State of Telangana & Ors.


           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.
           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
12                                                       [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                    Digital Supreme Court Reports


          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 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
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                          13

        Geddam Jhansi & Anr. v. The State of Telangana & Ors.


           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 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
14                                                         [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


      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.
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                        15

        Geddam Jhansi & Anr. v. The State of Telangana & Ors.


     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.
     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.
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.
16                                                         [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


      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
    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.
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                          17

        Geddam Jhansi & Anr. v. The State of Telangana & Ors.


           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 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
18                                                             [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


           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 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
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                          19

        Geddam Jhansi & Anr. v. The State of Telangana & Ors.


     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 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
20                                                         [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


      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.
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
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                         21

        Geddam Jhansi & Anr. v. The State of Telangana & Ors.


     them and 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
     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
22                                                             [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                        Digital Supreme Court Reports


      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 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
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                         23

           Geddam Jhansi & Anr. v. The State of Telangana & Ors.


             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 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.

     Result of the case: Appeals allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey