High Court · 2025

1 The State of Telangana, Rep By its Public prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad. 2 !Tt, S\/vetha Veena, Wo Praneeth Kumar, Aged 36 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o H.No. New MIG 3'134, Tellapur ...RESPONDENTS/ DEFACTO . GOMPLAINANT Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the h/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.539 of 2018, on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of I class for Trial of cases under Telangana Prohibition and Excise Act cum lll Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sanga Reddy, for the offences U/sec 354, 498-4, IPC Sec 3 & 4 Dp Act against the petitioners i Accused No. 4 to 6. t.A. NO: zoF 2025 Petition un ler S ection 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the lMentor.anl lm of Grounds of Criminal Petition the Hig"r Court may be pleased to ltay erll further proceedings including appeari:Lrce of the petitioners / 44 to A6 n pursuance of the charge sheet in C C Nc lil}9 of 2018' on the file of the Sltec ial Judicial Magistrate of I class for Trial of clses under Excise Act cum lll Additional Jur-rior C;ivil Judge' Telangana Prohibition and Sanga ReddY. This Petition cr:ring on for hearing, upon perusing the Met'nrrrandum of GroundsofCrimirlaPrltitionanduponhearingtheargumentsofSrirJLlMAMlDl SHASHIDHARFEDD/AdvocateforthePetitionersandfiril:: Assistant Public Pr:se'cutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent Nc.1 Appeared for the Rospoldent No.2. GANESH, and None The Court made ther fcllowing: ORDER a) ORDER: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION N0.169 0F 2025 The present criminal petition is filed by the petitioners/ accused Nos.4 to 6 under Section 528 of BNSS, seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.539 of 2OlB, on the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for Trial of Cases Under Telangana Prohibition and Excise Act-cum-III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sanga Reddy, registered for the offences under Sections 354, 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dp Act.

2. Heard Sri Pulimamidi Shashidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri E.Ganesh, learned assistant public prosecutor for the respondent No.1/State.

3. Crime in FIR No.636 of 2017 on the hle of the police Station, Ramachandrapuram was registered basing on the complaint lodged by the respondent No.2/de-facto complainant. The allegations levelled are that in-spite of receipt of dowry and other gifts, the accused, who are the husband, in-laws ald other family members of the husband of the respondent No.2, meted her out for additional 66i1,,ry and even they did not allow her to move closely with her husband. She further complained that the eff{ts made by her parents through the elders to resolve the .issues went in vain and hence, she lodged the present complain

4. I.JporL completion of investigation, -hc pol c: laid charge-she et ir CC No.539 of 20 18 and the same is ;rt:nding adjudication h,: i:re the trial Court'

5. rllhalLenging the said proceedings, t'he pct tioners, who were ;tr: a'y:rl as accused Nos.4 to 6 hled the l)resrlnt ':riminal petition rr.ainll contending that the responden t Nc 2 : LrLd her husband a re lir ing separately since their marriage an<l he e':e, the question of pe:ilioners harassing the 2"d respondellt dc:s not arise, the pt lit oners never involved in their day to tlay lile., the allegations, itr(3 /ague and omnibus and hence th'r cc'nrplaint lacks ingr,:die;:rtr; of the offences with which the petjl ionr rs were charge-shceterl the issues betwecn the 2nd respondrlnt t1lld her husband rvr:rr: settled amicably. Upon the staterlenl of the respondent lrio.2 before the trial Court that she was li '"ing tLappily with her hr-. sba rd, the triai Court referred the ma-ter tr Lok- Adalat an,l -he tarties were kept under observal ion for ) ) days and the rlatte - was posted to 16.03.2020 but <lue to (lc'vid-19 pandemic thc rnatter got delayed and during the saic pe: ir>d, the 2"d respo rden . died on 18.72.2020 due to Covid- i 9 litating thus, thc peti -irrners fi1ed copy of death certificate of the 2"d responder.t (- Page 3 of5

6. On the other learned Assistant public prosecutor opposed the present criminal petition mainly contending that the matter needs full-fledged trial to elicit the truth. Stating thus, he requested to dismiss the criminal petition.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and upon perusing the material on record, it can be seen that as per proceedings dated 14.12.2019 of the trial Court, the de-facto complainant/2"a respondent herein reported that she was living with accused No.l/ her husband since one and half years. Accordingly, the trial Court referred the matter to Lok Adalat and kept the parties under observation for 9O days. The copy of death certificate dated 02.12.2021, issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Government of Telangana, Department of Medical & Health, revealed that during the pendency of the proceedings before the trial Court, .i.e. on 18.12.2020 the 2nd respondent/de-facto complainant died due to Covid 19 pandemic.

8. The need for specific and detailed allegations of cruelty or harassment before proceeding with a prosecution under Section 498-4 IPC is the sine-quo-non. General or vague allegations are considered indicative of a matrimonial dispute and are not sufhcient to warrant prosecution. In essence, w[ile Page .l of5 .l Section 4'l8A IrC is intended to protect \tromen frc'm rlc'mestic violence, it cannot be used as a tool to harass 'lr irr plicate individuals bzr:;i'd on vague or unsubstantiated i'rllegati lns. The courts recuire srccific and detailed evidencc to estabiish a prima facie case lrelor.e proceeding with a prosecutiorl. In rhe case between St:rte of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lzrl and othersl the Hcn'ble Apex Court categorically helcl that tlre po*.t to quash FII{s ;hould not be exercised lightly and shc,uld be done only in case ,; ,,r he re the allegations do not prima lacic con sl.itute a cognizabl(r o [ft:r rt;e. g . Wl rc n the factual matrix of the casc on h a -ld are evaluated on tlrc touchstone of the proposition of lar" Ja;d down, this Cour- linc s no reason to continue the crim:nal pro.:e ,edings against thc Jretitioners herein since, there are n,r s;pecihc allegatior-r; l:r,elled against them in the complaint ancl tha, [he de- facto comrrkLinrrnt admitted that she was living witir her h usband. In that vieu of the matter, the present criminal pctit on :lt:serves to be allovrerl 1 1992 r.rR ( 0,1 Page 5 of5 1O. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed, quashing the impugned proceedings against the petitioners in CC No.539 of 20 18, on the hle of the learned Speciat Judicial Magistrate of I Class for Trial of Cases Under Telangana Prohibition and Excise Act-cum-Il Additionar Junior civ Judge, Sanga Reddy. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. A. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class Trial of Cases under Telanoana Prohibition and Excise Act cum lll Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sangi Reddy.

2. The Additional Judicial First Class tvlagistrate at Sangareddy. 3. The Station House Officer, Ramachandrapuram police Station, Cyberabad 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. (OUT) 5. One CC to SRl. PULIMAIMID| SHASHIDHAR REDDY, Advocate tOpUCl 6 Two CD Copies RC/gh HIGH COURT DATED: 251(14t2025 ,.,-- -::-i .,':.,1 . r i' 'i s I4 14: J o O c t :t. 12 ,ul,] 206 l.r o ,TC\rtLl .-t i C) i, ORDER CRLP.No.169 cf 2025 The Criminal F'etition is AIlowed. ) -\',\l