Telangana HC Quashes Dowry, Fraud Case Against Husband After Noting Couple Already Divorced in U.S.

The Telangana High Court has quashed criminal proceedings filed by a woman’s father against her son-in-law and in-laws in a dowry and fraud case, noting that he had withheld crucial facts while approaching the police. The Court pointed out that the complainant failed to mention that the couple had already secured a divorce decree from a U.S. court and that a financial settlement had been reached between the two families.

Calling it a case of “deliberate suppression of material facts”, Justice J. Sreenivas Rao observed, “Allowing the proceedings to continue in such circumstances would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law.”

The order came on a plea by a software engineer and his family seeking to quash the case registered at the Karimnagar Women Police Station in 2021. The proceedings stemmed from a complaint lodged by the man’s father-in-law, accusing the son-in-law and his relatives of offences under Sections 498A (cruelty) and 420 (cheating) of the IPC, and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

According to the complaint, despite having spent Rs 15 lakh on the wedding in December 2014 and giving 50 tulas of gold ornaments along with four tulas as adatpaduchu katnam, the in-laws allegedly demanded an additional Rs 1 crore as dowry. The complainant further claimed that his daughter was threatened with abandonment if the demand was not met, and that her husband attempted to remarry without obtaining a valid divorce. He said he had secured a temporary injunction from a civil court to restrain the proposed marriage.

The petitioners countered that the allegations were false and unsustainable, pointing out that the marriage had already been dissolved by a U.S. Circuit Court in April 2021, pursuant to a marital settlement agreement voluntarily signed by both spouses. They also produced a Memorandum of Understanding entered into in October 2021 between the husband’s parents and the complainant and his wife, under which the family returned the gold ornaments and paid Rs 24 lakh through cheques in full and final settlement. Despite this, the complaint was filed suppressing these facts, they argued.

Senior counsel for the petitioners relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and other precedents to contend that allowing the case to continue would amount to an abuse of process. He also cited Geddam Jhansi v. State of Telangana, where the apex court had quashed dowry-related charges against distant relatives when allegations were vague and omnibus in nature.

The complainant’s counsel, however, insisted that the foreign divorce decree had no validity in India since the marriage was solemnised under Hindu rites. He contended that the MOU addressed only financial aspects and could not absolve the accused of criminal liability. Stressing that there were specific allegations of harassment and dowry demand, he relied on earlier rulings such as Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi and Rupak Rathi v. Anita Chaudhary to argue that foreign decrees must conform to Indian matrimonial law to be enforceable.

After hearing both sides, Justice Sreenivas Rao, in a detailed 21-page ruling, held that while the enforceability of the U.S. divorce decree was a separate matter, the fact remained that the complainant had accepted the settlement, taken money, and recovered the ornaments. Suppressing these facts while lodging a fresh complaint, the Court said, undermined the very basis of the prosecution.

The Court also pointed out that while the Supreme Court had earlier granted the woman liberty to initiate proceedings in India after the U.S. decree, she herself had not chosen to do so.

Recalling the Bhajan Lal principles, the judge added,“Dragging the husband’s relatives into criminal prosecution without clear allegations of specific acts falls squarely within the category of cases where continuation of proceedings amounts to an abuse of the legal process.”

Justice Rao also noted that omnibus and general allegations against family members, without specific roles or acts attributed to them, cannot be the basis of criminal prosecution under dowry laws.

Since the husband and wife had been living apart since 2019, and the complainant’s family had already accepted the settlement, the Court said there was no justification in dragging the criminal proceedings any further. Concluding that the complaint amounted to an abuse of law, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings against the petitioners.

Case Title: Akula Rohith & Others v. State of Telangana & Another

Judgment Date: 26 August 2025

Bench: Justice J. Sreenivas Rao