Chennaboina Sai Krishna vs The State of Telangana
- Court
- High Court for the State of Telangana
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.13192 and 13370 of 2026
Between :
Chennaboina Sai Krishna S/o. Aravind
Age: 35 years, Occ: Private Employee,
R/o.Ho.No.18-78/35/29/1, Maa Bhavani Enclave,
Peerzadiguda, Medipally,
Medchal-Malkajgiri District
….Petitioner/Accused No.1
In Crl.P.No.13192 of 2026
Chennaboina Swaroopa Rani W/o.Chennaboina Aravind,
Aged: 70 years, Occ: Household,
R/o.Ho.No.18-78/35/29/1, Maa Bhavani Enclave,
Peerzadiguda, Medipally,
Medchal-Malkajgiri District and three others
….Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 to 6
In Crl.P.No.13192 of 2026
VERSUS
The State of Telangana
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad,
Through Station House Officer,
Medipally police Station, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, and another
… Respondents
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 01.09.2026
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see the
Judgments?
Yes/No
2. Whether the copies of judgment may
be marked to Law Reporters/Journals?
Yes/No
3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish
to see the fair copy of the Judgment?
Yes/No
_______________________
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
2
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
+ CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.13192 and 13370 of 2026
% Dated 01.09.2026
# Chennaboina Sai Krishna S/o. Aravind
Age: 35 years, Occ: Private Employee,
R/o.Ho.No.18-78/35/29/1, Maa Bhavani Enclave,
Peerzadiguda, Medipally,
Medchal-Malkajgiri District
….Petitioner/Accused No.1
In Crl.P.No.13192 of 2026
Chennaboina Swaroopa Rani W/o.Chennaboina Aravind,
Aged: 70 years, Occ: Household,
R/o.Ho.No.18-78/35/29/1, Maa Bhavani Enclave,
Peerzadiguda, Medipally,
Medchal-Malkajgiri District and three others
….Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 to 6
In Crl.P.No.13192 of 2026
VERSUS
$ The State of Telangana
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad,
Through Station House Officer,
Medipally police Station, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, and another
… Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioners : Mr. S. Goutham
^ Counsel for Respondents : Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned
< GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? CITATIONS:
1. (2026) 6 SCC 233
2. (1997) 9 SCC 759
3. 2026 SCC OnLine TS 647
4. (2015) 1 SCC 797
5. 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
6. AIR 2019 SC 947
3
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.13192 AND 13370 OF 2026
(CNR Nos.HBHC010553772026 and HBHC010553732026)
DATE:01.09.2026
Between :
Chennaboina Sai Krishna
....Petitioner/Accused No.1
in Crl.P.No.13192 of 2026
Chennaiboina Swaroopa Rani and three others
....Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 to 6
in Crl.P.No.13370 of 2026
AND
The State of Telangana and another.
....Respondents
: COMMON ORDER :
Crl.P.No.13192 of 2026 has been filed by the
petitioner/accused No.1 and Crl.P.No.13370 of 2026 has been filed
by the petitioners/accused Nos.3 to 6, under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNSS’),
seeking to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.626 of 2023 on the file of
the I Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Additional Family
Court-cum-Special Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking the cases
relating to Atrocities against Women at Medchal-Malkajgiri District,
(for short, ‘the trial Court’) for the offence under Section 304-B read
4
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’).
Hence, both the criminal petitions are heard together and are being
disposed of by this common order.
2. Brief facts of the case:
2.1. On 26.01.2023 at 03.00 hours, respondent No.2/father of the
deceased lodged a complaint stating that he is having three children
and among them, his younger daughter, namely, Chennaboina
Soundarya got married to the petitioner/accused No.1 on 10.11.2019
and was blessed with a baby boy on 05.08.2021. After 16 months of
marriage, due to many issues between the couple and pressure from
their family, he brought her back to his residence and at that time,
she conceived for 2 months. Since then, he took care of his daughter
and her baby till May 2022. As the petitioner/accused No.1 along
with family members visited his house and also promised him that
they will take care of his daughter in a good way and took his
daughter back to the residence of the petitioner/accused No.1.
Further, his daughter regularly used to inform that her in-laws forced
her in financial matters as in the past she gave her salary to her
husband for 16 months, but after returning to their residence she
refused to give her salary of Rs.30,000/- to her husband and in-laws.
Besides, at the early stage of marriage, his daughter was severely
tortured by the petitioners and accused No.2. Even after sending his
daughter to her in-laws house, she faced many issues, so he took
5
care of his grandson from 0700 hours to 1930 hours, when his
daughter leaves to office and after office hours, he will drop her at her
residence. As usually on 25.01.2023, his daughter visited his house
in morning hours and handed over the child to them and left to office,
but came back early from the office at 1800 hours, took the child and
left to her residence. When his son called to her daughter at 1815
hours, her daughter informed that she reached home safely and
further, when he called his daughter’s mobile phone at 2000 hours,
she did not attend the call. Later, at 2100 hours, he received a phone
call from the petitioner/accused No.6 to visit Kamala Hospital where
he found that his daughter was lying on stretcher and she has marks
on her neck and three persons were present at the location namely,
the petitioners/accused Nos.1, 5 and 6, where they came to know
that she hanged herself to a fan at her residence. Based on the said
complaint, Crime No.83 of 2023 was registered against the petitioners
and accused No.2 for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 read
with Section 109 of the IPC and subsequently altered the section of
law to 304-B of the IPC. The Investigating Officer, after recording the
statements of LWs.1 to 26 and after completion of investigation, filed
the final report before the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-VI
Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District,
Uppal at L.B.Nagar on 29.04.2023, and the learned Magistrate took
6
cognizance for the aforesaid offences and committed to the Court of
Sessions and in turn it was numbered as S.C.No.626 of 2023.
3. Heard Mr. L. Ravichander, learned Senior Counsel representing
Mr. S. Goutham, learned counsel for the petitioners, and
Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 State.
4. Submissions of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners:
4.1. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioners have not
committed any offence and have been falsely implicated in the
present case. There are no allegations, much less specific allegations
either in the complaint or in the final report or in the suicide note
that the petitioners instigated or provoked the deceased to commit
suicide. There are no allegations in the complaint that the petitioners
harassed the deceased mentally and physically for additional dowry,
and demanded her salary. The allegations levelled in the complaint
against the petitioners are omnibus, vague, general and lacking
specific details of their individual involvement in any act of dowry
demand or cruelty soon before the death of the deceased, as required
under Section 304-B of the IPC. Apart from these allegations, no
specific overt acts, incidents, or individual roles attributed to any of
the petitioners have been stated. In the absence of any corroborating
material, implicated the petitioners in a grave offence under Section
7
304-B of the IPC. Merely basing on the allegations levelled in the
complaint, without any material demonstrating a proximate nexus
between the alleged acts of the petitioners and the death of the
deceased, is insufficient to hold that the petitioners responsible for
the death. The allegations do not prima facie constitute or make out
a case against the petitioners to attract the ingredients of the offence
under Section 304-B of the IPC.
4.2. He further submitted that the recitals in the suicide note also
unequivocally demonstrate that the deceased did not attribute any
allegation against the petitioners that she committed suicide at their
instigation, provocation, or on account of any act attributable to
them. In the suicide note, the deceased has not mentioned the name
of any of the petitioners. On the contrary, the recitals in the suicide
note discloses that the deceased expressed love and affection towards
her family, particularly her minor son, and expressed her concern for
his future. However, merely the fact that the forensic findings
confirms suicide, implicated the petitioners as an accused.
4.3. He also submitted that the statements of the witnesses were
also containing general accusations against the petitioners and there
are no specific allegations made against them, especially against the
petitioners/accused Nos.4 to 6. Though there are no specific overt
acts against the petitioner/accused Nos.4 to 6, they were implicated
8
as an accused only because the petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 are
the sisters and petitioner/accused No.6 is the brother of accused
No.1 and that the deceased committed suicide in the matrimonial
home of the petitioner/accused No.1.
4.4. He further submitted that even the allegations levelled in the
complaint or the statements of witnesses or the final report, fail to
establish a direct nexus between any specific act of cruelty or
harassment committed by the petitioners and the decision of the
deceased to commit suicide. The chain of events, as narrated, do not
demonstrate that the petitioners created such an atmosphere or
committed such acts that left the deceased with no option but to end
her life. In the absence of any specific overt acts and proximate acts
of cruelty or instigation by the petitioners, the contents of the suicide
note are exculpatory in nature. The petitioners were implicated as an
accused in a heinous offence only on the ground that the deceased
committed suicide within seven years of marriage. The ingredients of
the offence under Section 304-B of the IPC are not attracted against
the petitioners. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings against
the petitioners is a clear abuse of the process of law.
4.5. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following
judgments:
9
1. Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. State of Maharashtra and
1
others ;
2
2. Sham Lal v. State of Haryana ; and
3
3. B. Sridevi and another v. State of Telangana .
5. Submissions of learned Additional Public Prosecutor:
5.1. Per contra , learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that
there are specific allegations levelled in the final report that the
deceased committed suicide due to the harassment made by the
petitioners. There are specific allegations levelled in the complaint
that the petitioners subjected the deceased to mental and physical
harassment and demanded to hand over her salary to them. The
deceased was a private employee and was earning a monthly salary of
Rs.30,000/-. Due to their harassment, the deceased committed
suicide by hanging. The statements of the witnesses also specifically
disclose the role of the petitioners and the circumstances leading to
the death of the deceased. The marriage of the deceased with the
petitioner/accused No.1 was solemnized on 10.11.2019 and that the
deceased committed suicide on 25.01.2023 at her matrimonial house
on account of the harassment made by the petitioners. The death
occurred within seven years of the marriage. Hence, the ingredients
of the offence under Section 304-B of the IPC are attracted.
1
(2026) 6 SCC 233
2
(1997) 9 SCC 759
3
2026 SCC OnLine TS 647
10
5.2. He further submitted that the petitioners have approached this
Court and filed the criminal petitions seeking quashing of the
proceedings on the ground that their names were not mentioned in
the suicide note. Mere non-mentioning the names of the petitioners
in the suicide note is not a ground for seeking quashing of the
proceedings. Whether the allegations levelled in the complaint and
the final report and the statements of the witnesses are true or not,
the same will be revealed during the course of trial. Hence, the
petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings.
Analysis:
6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the
respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on
record, it reveals that the marriage of the petitioner/accused No.1
with the deceased was solemnized on 10.11.2019. Respondent No.2,
who is none other than the father of the deceased, lodged a complaint
on 26.01.2023, wherein he specifically stated that after 16 months of
marriage, due to many issues between the petitioners and the
deceased, she was brought to his house. At that time, the deceased
was two months pregnant, and thereafter, he took care of her.
Subsequently, the deceased gave birth to a baby boy on 05.08.2021.
After 14 months i.e., on 10.05.2022, the petitioners came to his
house and promised that they will take care of the deceased. Based
11
on the said assurance, he sent his daughter and minor boy back to
the matrimonial house of the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners
subjected the deceased mentally and physically that her income be
handed over to them. It is further stated that whenever his daughter
went to her workplace, she used to leave her minor son at his house
and after returning from work, she took the child with her to the
matrimonial home. She is facing mental distress on account of the
harassment by the petitioners. It is further stated in the complaint
that on 25.01.2023, the deceased came to his house in the morning,
left her minor son there, proceeded to her workplace and she
returned at about 06.00 p.m. took the child with her and went to her
matrimonial home. At about 6.15 p.m. when his son made a call to
the deceased, she stated that she reached home safely. However,
when he called at 08.00 p.m., she did not answer the call. Later, at
09.00 p.m., he received a call from the petitioner/accused No.6
asking him to come to Kamala Hospital. Then, he proceeded to the
hospital, where he found his daughter lying on a stretcher with a
mark on her neck. The deceased committed suicide due to the
mental and physical harassment made by the petitioners. The
Investigating Officer, after recording the statements of LWs. 1 to 26,
filed the final report. LW.1/de facto complainant, is the father of the
deceased. LW.2 is the mother and LW.3 is the brother of the
deceased. LWs.4 to 6 are neighbours of the deceased. LW.7 is the
12
elderly person, who compromised the issue between the deceased and
the petitioner/accused No.1 on 10.05.2022. LWs.8 and 9 are
colleagues of the deceased. LW.10 furnished the CCTV footage at the
residence of the petitioner/accused No.1. LW.11 is elder sister of the
deceased and LWs.12 and 13 are the mediators for the scene of
offence panchanama and its rough sketch. LWs.14 and 15 are the
mediators for inquest panchanama over the body of the deceased.
LWs.16 and 17 are the mediators for confessional pancahnama of the
petitioner/accused No.1. LWs.18 is the Medical Officer, who
conducted the Post Mortem Examination over the body of the
deceased and issued final opinion. LW.19 is a doctor, who issued the
final opinion. LW.20 held inquest panchanama over the body of the
deceased. LW.21 furnished the FSL report.
7. The record further reveals that while the investigation was in
progress, on 06.02.2023, respondent No.2/LW.1 submitted another
representation. Pursuant to the same, LW.26 was examined
respondent No.2 and re-recorded his statement under Section 161
Cr.P.C. and altered the Section of law from Sections 498-A and 306
read with 109 IPC to Section 304-B of the IPC.
8. A perusal of the charge sheet reveals that the deceased, who is
the daughter of LWs.1 and 2, used to work in Aurobindo Pharma
Company, Miyapur, and her marriage was performed with the
13
petitioner/accused No.1 in M-Convention Hall, Medipally, in the
presence of both the sides of elderly persons. At the time of marriage,
as per the exigency of the petitioner/accused No.1 and his family
members, the parents of the deceased presented 25 tolas of gold and
an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- in the form of dowry. After marriage,
the deceased, in order to lead her conjugal life blissfully, joined the
company of the petitioner/accused No.1 at his residence, where the
deceased was looked after well for few days. Thereafter, the
petitioners and accused No.2 harassed the deceased physically and
mentally on the ground that the dowry amount earlier presented by
the parents of deceased was insufficient and thereby demanded the
deceased to bring an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- in the form of
additional dowry from her parents. For which, the deceased
disavowed by specifying that she is working and that her parents
presented the dowry as agreed. Even then also, the petitioners and
accused No.2 altogether, without considering the words of the
deceased, have harassed her to bring additional dowry. Later, the
pregnancy of the deceased was confirmed and was advised to take
bed rest by doctor, as the health condition of the deceased was
unstable. At that moment also, the petitioners and accused No.2,
without considering the deceased as a pregnant lady, used to beat
her with hands, which the deceased communicated to respondent
No.2 over phone. Then respondent No.2, in the thought that staying
14
of deceased at the residence of the petitioners would cause any
problem to the pregnancy, has brought the deceased to his residence.
In spite of that also, the petitioner/accused No.1 made phone calls to
the deceased and harassed her by way of having crooked talks with
her to bring an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- in the form of additional
dowry. On 05.08.2021, the deceased gave birth to a boy at a hospital
situated in Ramanthapur and further, after delivery of the deceased
also, the petitioner/accused No.1 through phone caused severe
hardships to the deceased. For six months prior to the delivery and
for nine months after the delivery of the male child, for a total of 15
months, the deceased stayed at the residence of respondent No.2.
While it is so, on 10.05.2022, the petitioner/accused No.1 along with
LW.7 arrived at the residence of respondent No.2, where the
petitioner/accused No.1 promised to take care of the deceased,
refused to ask for additional dowry of Rs. 10,00,000/- and had taken
the deceased to his residence in the presence of LW.7. After few days
of stay of deceased at the matrimonial home, the petitioners and
accused No.2 again harassed the deceased physically and mentally to
bring Rs.10,00,000/- as additional dowry and have also demanded
the deceased to give her salary, thereby the petitioners and accused
No.2 have beaten the deceased. As the deceased attends job at
Aurobindo Pharma Company, Miyapur, daily morning she drops her
son at the residence of respondent No.2 and takes her son along with
15
her to the residence of her in-laws in the evening. The deceased
became annoyed with the continuous physical and mental
harassments of the petitioners and accused No.2 for bringing an
additional dowry amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-, on 25.01.2023 in the
evening, the deceased went into the hall, bolted the door from inside
and committed suicide by hanging herself from the ceiling fan with
the help of a chunni.
9. Further, LWs.4 to 6 in their statement specifically mentioned
the role of the petitioners in relation to the circumstances leading to
the death of the deceased. Whether the allegations levelled either in
the complaint or in the final report or the statements of the witnesses
recorded by the Investigating Officer during the course of
investigation, are true or not, the same will be revealed during the
course of trial.
10. The record discloses that the marriage of the deceased with the
petitioner/accused No.1 was solemnized on 10.11.2019 and that the
deceased committed suicide on 25.01.2023 at her matrimonial home,
i.e., within the seven years of her marriage. There are specific
allegations levelled in the final report that the petitioners harassed
the deceased mentally and physically, demanding additional dowry as
well as her salary. However, truthfulness of allegations or evidentiary
value has to be assessed during the course of trial and the witnesses
16
in their statements also mentioned the role of the petitioners. At this
stage, it cannot be said that the charge sheet is bereft of basic facts
constituting an offence punishable under Section 304-B of the IPC.
11. Insofar as the contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel
that the deceased did not make any allegation, much less specific
allegation, against the petitioners in the suicide note and that she did
not mention the names of any of the petitioners or that she
committed suicide on account of any instigation or provocation at the
instance of the petitioners and accused No.2, are concerned, the
same cannot be accepted for quashing of the proceedings at this
stage.
12. It is relevant to mention that in Naresh Kumar v. State of
4
the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a
Hariyana and others ,
suicide note cannot be treated as an “encyclopaedia of the entire
situation” in which the deceased was placed. A mere statement in
the suicide note that nobody should be held responsible cannot, by
itself, exonerate the accused, particularly where the evidence on
record and surrounding circumstances establish harassment, cruelty
or dowry-related conduct. The suicide note must be assessed in the
light of the entire evidence and circumstances of the case.
4
(2015) 1 SCC 797
17
13. In Abhinav Mohan Delkar ( supra ), the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held that to constitute abetment of suicide under Section 306 read
with Section 107 IPC, there must be a positive act of instigation or
intentional aiding accompanied by the requisite mens rea. Even
where there are allegations of continuous harassment over a long
period, there must be a proximate prior act or incident having a
direct nexus with the suicide and which can reasonably be regarded
as having driven the deceased to take the extreme step. Mere
harassment, reprimand, rebuke, insult or continuous ill-treatment,
without a conscious and deliberate intention to drive the deceased to
suicide, does not by itself constitute abetment. The requisite mens
rea must be discernible from the conscious acts or words of the
accused and the surrounding circumstances. In ( supra ),
Sham Lal
the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that for invoking the statutory
presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act in a
prosecution under Section 304-B IPC, the prosecution must first
establish that, “soon before her death”, the deceased was subjected to
cruelty or harassment by the accused for, or in connection with, a
demand for dowry. Mere proof that the deceased died of burns within
seven years of marriage is insufficient to attract the statutory
presumption. In the absence of evidence establishing such proximate
cruelty or harassment for dowry, the presumption under Section 113-
B cannot be invoked and conviction under Section 304-B IPC cannot
18
be sustained, although the accused may nevertheless be convicted
under Section 498-A IPC if the ingredients of that offence are
independently established. In B. Sridevi & Anr ( supra ), the High
Court of Telangana held that for attracting Section 304-B IPC, there
must be a proximate and live nexus between the alleged cruelty or
harassment for dowry and the death of the deceased. Mere allegations
of cruelty, harassment or dowry demand, without material
establishing their continuity or proximity to the death, are
insufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement of “soon before her
death”. Where the prosecution material does not disclose any specific
act of cruelty or harassment attributable to the accused in close
proximity to the death, the essential ingredients of Section 304-B IPC
are not made out.
14. The above said judgments relied upon by the petitioners are not
applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case on the
ground that there are specific allegations in the final report and
statements of witnesses that the petitioners harassed the deceased
for additional dowry. The allegations levelled in the final report and
statements of witnesses and material evidence relied upon by the
prosecution require a proper trial to determine the truth. Therefore,
the final report cannot be quashed at this stage.
19
15. It is relevant to mention that in State of Haryana and others
5
v. Bhajan Lal and others , the Hon’ble Supreme Court delineated
the limited scope of the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India and Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal
proceedings, holding that such power may be exercised only in
exceptional cases where the allegations, even if taken at face value,
do not disclose any offence, are inherently improbable, legally barred,
or manifestly mala fide, while cautioning that the categories so
enumerated are illustrative and the power must be exercised
sparingly.
16. It is apt to refer to the decision rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in
Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. The State of
6
Maharashtra , wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that
quashing criminal proceedings was called for only in a case where
complaint did not disclose any offence, or was frivolous, vexatious, or
oppressive. If allegations set out in complaint did not constitute
offence of which cognizance had been taken by Magistrate, it was
open to High Court to quash same. It was not necessary that, a
meticulous analysis of case should be done before trial to find out
whether case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appeared on a
reading of complaint and consideration of allegations therein, in light
5
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
6
AIR 2019 SC 847
20
of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are
disclosed, there would be no justification for High court to interfere.
The defences that might be available, or facts/aspects which when
established during tria1, might lead to acquittal, were not grounds for
quashing complaint at threshold.
17. For the foregoing reasons as well as the precedent decisions,
this Court is of the view that the inherent power under Section 528 of
the BNSS cannot be invoked to stifle a legitimate prosecution.
Truthfulness of allegations in the final report or evidentiary value has
to be assessed during the course of trial.
18. In the result, both the criminal petitions are accordingly
dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
Date: 01.09.2026
L.R. Copy to be marked.
mar