Geddam Jhansi and Anr Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 07 Feb 2025

Posted on December 6, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of the Supreme Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to quash a DV case, which has same allegations as in a false 498A IPC case.

40. Accordingly, we allow both the present Criminal Appeals as below:
(i) The impugned judgement and order dated 04.04.2022 passed by the Ld. Single Bench of the High Court for the State of Telangana in Criminal Petition No. 3105 of 2022 is set aside and the criminal proceedings in “C.C. No. 46 of 2022” pending before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhongir under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is quashed qua the two appellants, Geddam Jhansi and Geddam Sathyakama Jabali.
(ii) The impugned judgement and order dated 03.02.2022 passed by the Ld. Single Bench of the High Court for the State of Telangana in Criminal Petition No. 1002 of 2022 is set aside and the criminal proceedings in DVC No. 25 of 2021 pending before the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhongir is quashed qua the appellant, Geddam Jhansi. This is having regard to the criminal proceeding against her being quashed as above and as identical allegation (paragraph 28 above) are made against her in DVC No. 25 of 2021, and in exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. This is also by bearing in mind the relationship of the appellant Geddam Jhansi to the complainant, being the latters’s mother-in-law’s sister.

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

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/192533816/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/67a6e0c4a1572e13dd1ca525

https://testbook.com/recent-judgements/geddam-jhansi-vs-the-state-of-telangana

https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/s498a-ipc-when-family-relations-are-sought-to-be-brought-under-criminal-proceedings-courts-should-be-cautious-supreme-court-283311

https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/geddam-jhansi-v-the-state-of-telangana-2025-insc-160-domestic-violence-1567439

Index of DV Judgments is here. Index of Quash Judgments is here.

Kunchala Venkayamma Vs Kunchala Srinivasa Rao on 29 April 2019

Posted on March 4, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Magistrate Court at Ongole, Prakasam dismissed the DV Case based on Markapuram Sivarao case here, as the 498A IPC case was dismissed earlier which had same/similar allegations.

Kunchala Venkayamma Vs Kunchala Srinivasa Rao on 29 April 2019

Citations: [2

Sachin Sharma and Ors Vs Radhika Sharma on 06 February 2013

Posted on January 17, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Punjab and Haryana High Court had held that, the cunning respondent levelled similar allegations in FIR under Section 498-A IPC were duly inquired by the police and it was found that petitioners No. 2 and 3 were innocent. So the DV case on both the parents was quashed.

Sachin Sharma and Ors Vs Radhika Sharma on 06 February 2013

Citations: [2013 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 817],

Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/83272752/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56099c51e4b01497113cd848

A.Sujatha Vs C.Nagaraju on 29 January, 2016

Posted on November 4, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

A well-reasoned judgment from Hon’ble First Class Magistrate ably supported by a catena of judgments held that this DVC was an attempt by the knife to usurp the property and nothing to do with domestic violence.

Last nail in the coffin on the money-hungry, gold-digging knife:

When she is having capacity to maintain herself then extending her palm for the alms of the respondent is highly un-acceptable. So as per the Domestic Violence Act, though it is a beneficial legislation but the basic principles cannot be deviated under the facts and circumstances of this case and the petitioner is not entitled to claim any maintenance and for residence.

A.Sujatha Vs C.Nagaraju on 29 January, 2016

Pandranki Giri Babu Vs State Of A.P. on 4 October, 2012

Posted on October 15, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is the earlier false 498A case that was quashed by Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

Pandranki Giri Babu Vs State Of A.P. on 4 October, 2012

Subsequent DVC is available here.

P.Sugunamma And Others Vs State Of A.P. on 19 January, 2015

Posted on October 15, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is a quash judgment from Hon’ble High of Andhra Pradesh, wherein the DVC on relatives of husband are quashed on grounds that there is ‘no shared household’ and ‘no domestic relationship’ conditions.

5. ( i) Coming back to the facts of the case, all the petitioners are residents of Prakasam District whereas the respondent is a resident of Hyderabad. There is nothing on record to show that the present petitioners had any domestic relationship and lived together with the 2nd respondent in a shared household at any point of time. Further after the proceedings in Crime No.204 of 2010 were quashed by this Court, by orders dated 04.10.2012, the present DV case is filed by the 2nd respondent.
6 . Viewed thus, this Court finds that the petitioners have made out valid and sufficient grounds to quash the proceedings against them in D.V.C.No.18 of 2012 on the file of VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District.
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Consequently, the proceedings against the petitioners herein in D.V.C.No.18 of 2012 on the file of VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District are hereby quashed.

P.Sugunamma And Others Vs State Of A.P. on 19 January, 2015

Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/196776515/

Citation:

Earlier 498a case that was quashed is available here.

The index page is here.

Markapuram Siva Rao and Ors Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 30 April, 2013

Posted on July 9, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Important Quash Judgment for Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

All 6 (out of total 7 respondents) in this DVC are freed by quashing the DVC proceedings initiated on them as the allegations are replica of those made in IPC 498A Case and moreover the allegations are vague and general in nature.

Observation by Hon’ble Judge:
The allegations made in the said report are verbatim identical with the report lodged with the Project Officer. It appears that a report was prepared and copies of which were sent to police station and Project Officer.

Markapuram Siva Rao & Others Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 30 April, 2013

Citation:

Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/160109228/

The index page is here.

Chandra Sukanya Devi Vs Chandra Srinivasulu on 18 November, 2014

Posted on July 9, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This DVC is dismissed as there is earlier IPC 498A which was dismissed based on Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment in Markapuram Siva Rao & Others Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 30 April, 2013.

Chandra Sukanya Devi Vs Chandra Srinivasulu on 18 November, 2014

Citation:

Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link:

The index page is here.

Buravilli Siva Madhuri Vs Sri Buravilli Satya Venkata Lakshmana Rao and Ors on 25 September, 2012

Posted on May 21, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Very good judgment wherein, false DVC is dismissed on all family members, except husband, for the ground of general and sweeping allegation. More interestingly, same allegations were used to file a false IPC 498A case also earlier.

In the instant case, by making the very same general and sweeping allegations, the petitioner get the respondents 2 to 6 involved in the domestic violence case. From the nature of the allegations levelled against the respondents 2 to 6, the intention of the complainant seems to be that she wanted to involve all the relatives of her husband in the domestic violence case. By examining the facts of the present case, in the light of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in the above referred judgments, I am thoroughly convinced that the respondents 2 to 6 were involved in the DVC on account of the vindictive attitude of the petitioner/wife, continuing them in the DVC will not yield any useful purpose except causing harassment and hardship to them. Both the Courts below, therefore, are perfectly justified in taking the view that the cognizance of the case shall not been taken against the respondents 2 to 6/A2 to A6.

Buravilli Siva Madhuri Vs. Sri Buravilli Satya Venkata Lakshmana Rao and others on 25 September, 2012

Citation: [2013 ALD CRI 1 634], [2013 CRILJ 4653]

Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5608f8bae4b0149711143245

The index page is here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: Same Allegations in IPC 498A and DVC

Geddam Jhansi and Anr Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 07 Feb 2025

Kunchala Venkayamma Vs Kunchala Srinivasa Rao on 29 April 2019

Sachin Sharma and Ors Vs Radhika Sharma on 06 February 2013

A.Sujatha Vs C.Nagaraju on 29 January, 2016

Pandranki Giri Babu Vs State Of A.P. on 4 October, 2012

P.Sugunamma And Others Vs State Of A.P. on 19 January, 2015

Markapuram Siva Rao and Ors Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 30 April, 2013

Chandra Sukanya Devi Vs Chandra Srinivasulu on 18 November, 2014

Buravilli Siva Madhuri Vs Sri Buravilli Satya Venkata Lakshmana Rao and Ors on 25 September, 2012