The Apex Court in Geddam Jhansi v. The Sfate of Telanganal and also Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the Charge-Sheet vide C.C. No.400 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Metpally, Jagitial District. 2 l.A. NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including arrest of the Petitioners/Accused in C.C. No.400 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial First Class I\4agistrate at Metpally, Jagitial District, pending disposal of the main Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of SMT. PINGALI LAKSHMI, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender tlao Veeramalla, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIR,UMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.98 OF 2025 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners - accused Nos.1 to B seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.400 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Metpally, registered for the offences under Section 498-A of the lndia Penal Code (for short 'lPC') and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short'DP'Act).

2. Heard the submissions of Smt. P. Lakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State and Ms. J Hymavathi, learned counsel for the respondent No.2

3. The Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the de-facto complainant has deserted the petitioner No.1 in 2019 and has filed the complaint in 2023. Thus, there is an enormous delay of 4 years in filing the complaint. Therefore, the complaint lacks merits. She further submitted that the husband i.e., the petitioner No.1 has filed O.P for restitution of conjugal rights and the trial Court has allowed the said case in his favour, but still the de- 2 facto complainant failed to comply with the said orders. The petitioner No.1 has given notice seeking the compliance of orders, but still there is no response from the de-facto complainant. On the other hand she has filed the present complaint rruith all false allegations. The present complaint is filed as an afterlhought just to harass the petitioners herein and there is no other reason to file the same. Therefore, she prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that there are specific allegations of harassment against the petitioners and that the complainant has also narrated the details of harassment. She further submitted that LWs 5 to 7 are the eye witnesses to the alleged harassment. Therefore, ther veracity of these witnesses needs to be tested before the trial court, hence prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record

6. lt points out specific allegations of dowry harassnrent against the petitioners. The petitioner counsel contends that there is a delay of 4 years in lodging the complaint, but the delay cannot be a ground for quashing the proceedings. lt is borne out by record that \ --.2 3 the husband-petitioner No.1 has filed HMOP.No.19 of 2022 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking restitution of conjugal rights, which was allowed on 11J2.2023. The present complaint is dated 27.10.2023, that means while the proceedings under Section 9 were pending before the trial Court, the present complaint has been lodged. The petitioner No.1 is the husband of the de-facto complainant, petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the parents-in-law of de- facto complainant, the petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are the younger brothers of petitioner No.1, petitioner No.6 is the cousin sister of petitioner No.1 , petitioner No.7 is the husband of the petitioner No.6, petitioner No.8 is the distant relative of petitioner No.1. The allegations against petitioner No.1 is that he used to come home in a drunken condition daily and used to abuse her in filthy language and used to beat her demanding additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and used to harass her both physically and mentally. The allegation against petitioner Nos.2 and 3 is that they used to say that they belong to higher economic status and asked her to bring additional dowry and used to instigate her husband/accused No.1. The allegations against petitioner Nos.4 to 7 is that all of them used to say that the dowry brought by her is not sufficient and that she has tq bring another amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. The allegations against \ / 4 petitioner No.B is that he used to support all of thern demanding additional dowry

7. Thus, the recitals of complaint, and the statement of LW1 specifically point out physical and mental harassment made by accused No.1. As far as the other petitioners are concerned, there is one line averment stating that all of them used to say that the dowry brought by her is not as per their status and used to ask for Rs.5,00,000/- as an additional dowry. The only allegation against the petitioner No.B is that he used to support all these people. The petitioner Nos.6 to 8 are distant relatives and it is further seen that petitioner No.7 is a Teacher by occupation and is Resident of Kashibugga and petitioner No.6 is his wife. lt is further observed that there are no specific incidents of harassment narrated by the cje-facto complainant as against petitioner Nos.2 to 8.

8. The Apex Court in Geddam Jhansi v. The Sfate of Telanganal and also Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana2 hetd fhat when there are no specific allegations against the appellants the proceedings need to be quashed. Thus, the appeal was allowed and the impugned order of the High Court ' 2o2s (o) ArJEL-sc 74688 '{aql3 scc 73s 5 was set aside and as a result, the proceedings before the trial Court were quashed

9. Thus, in the light of the said decision and in view of the above held discussion, the proceedings against petitioner Nos.2 to B are quashed, while the attendance of petitioner No.1 is dispensed with before the trial Court unless his presence is specifically required by the trial Court during the course of trial, provided that he shall be represented by his counsel on every date of hearing

10. Accordingly, the Crimina! Petition is disposed of Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/- U.SUDHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 //TRUE COPY/ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Metpally, Jagitial Diqll.|"l . . . 2. The Station Houie Officer, pilice Station, Metpally, Jagitial District 3. Two CCs to tneFUgafC pnOSrCUTOR, High Cgyl at Hyderabad' (OUT) a.on"CCtoSMT.PINGAL|LAKSltMlAdvocate[oPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies TPK/PSL \q. HIGH COURT DATED:2811012025 I ORDER CRLP.No.98 of 2025 i{ i: l; '-,i;., c i) .Lt) * a2 Ll b rCHT:n r. CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISPOSED OF 2 co€nA Y;,, a{ t "''