Prosecutor High Court · 2025

Petition under Sec{ion 528 of BNSS praying that rn the circumstances stated rn the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the Hrgh Court may be pleased to allow the petition to secure ttrc ends of justice by setting aside the order Dt 2811112024 in Crl MP 12O of 2024 in Crl MP No 2 of 2024 n DVC 24 oI 2O2O on the file of lll Addl. Judicial Magistrate of the First Class at LB Nagar RR Dist consequently allow the Crl M.P.No. 12O of 2024 l.A. NO: 1OF 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 be pleased to Stay all further proceedings in CRL MP 2 of 2024 in DyC 24 ol 2020 on the file of lll Addl. Judicial Magistrate of the first Class at LB Nagar RR Dist. This Petition comtng on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T. SHARATH Advocate for the Petitroner and Sri Jrthender Rao Veeramalla, Additional public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.-1 CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1286 OF 2025 Between: Sana Nitish 1(umar reddy, s/o Sana Diwakar Reddy aged about 36 years Occ pvt Service R/o Plot No 5 Reddy Enclave Temple Alwal Secunderabad-10- ...PETITIONER/ Petitioner / Respondent AND

1. The State of Telangana, rep by Pubtic Prosecutor High Court at Hyderabad 2. Smt Kalimela Tarja Prryanka, w/o Sana Nitish Kumar Reddy aged.about 36 years Occ Private Employee r/o 3-8-173, Plot No{, Road No 5, Ooo Vijayalaxmi Theater, Chintalakunta, Chandrapuri Colony, LB Nagai, Rangareddy Drstnct. Tetangana - 500074. ph- 90'149561147: 010324683r'5. 9 100919390

3. Sana Diwakar Reddy. S/o Late Sana Anjaiah Aged about- 62 Years, Occ- Practising Advocate

4. Sana Manlula Rani, W/o Sana Diwakar Reddy Aged about- 53 Years, Occ- Practising Advocate

5. Sana Nivedrta. Wo M.V N Mahesh Aged about- 28 years, Occ- pursuing phd. Student at llT Madras Respondent No 3 to 5 c/o H.No 7-1OO115, Plot No. 5, Reddy Enclave, Tempte Alwal, Secunderabad - 50001 0 Respondent 3 to 5 not necessary parties to the petition 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 allow the Petition to secure the ends of justice by setting aside the ...RESPONDENTS order Dt. 2811112024 in Crl.M.P. 27O of 2024 in Crl.M.P. No 2 of 2024 in DVC 24 of 202O on the file of lll Addl. Judicial Magistrate of the first Class at LB Nagar Ranga Reddy District consequently allow the Crl Mp 270 of 2024 and pass l.A. NO: 1OF 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 in CRL MP 2 of 2024 in OVC 24 of 2OZO on the file of lll Addl. Judicial Magistrate of the First Class at LB Nagar R.R. Dist. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T. SHARATH Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri Mohd. Yousef, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 The Cou( made the following COMMON ORDER i i,/ THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.l266 & 1286 ot 2025 COMMON ORDER: Criminal Petition Nos.1266 of 2024 and 1286 of 2025 ate filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS, 2023') tor quashment of order dated

28.11.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.12O ot 2024 and 270 of 2024 respectively in Crl.M.P.No.2 ol 2024 in DVC No.24 of 2020 on the file of the lll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, LB NaGAR, Ranga Reddy District.

2. Heard Mr.T.Sharath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State.

3. The petitioner is respondent in the petition filed by the respondent No.2 vide Crl.M.P.No.2 of 2024, wherein monetary relief was sought under Section 20 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 for Rs.25,000/- towards house rent, electricity, water and Rs.25,0001 for food and household expenses and Rs 20,0001 for clothes, medications and other basic amenities and Rs.1 5,000/- for miscellaneous and unforeseen expenses, per mensem as an interim arrangement. 2 crtps-rzroarzsoTrtJ Pending this petition, the pefitioner herein filed miscellaneous petitions i.e., Crl.M.p.Nos.120 & 270 of 2[24seeking issuance of summons to the Head of the HR Departnrent at Hetero Drugs Limited/Labs, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad to produce the documents in respect of Registration lefter, the relieving letter and retter towards fu' and finar set{rement incruding the exit formarities of the respondent No.2 and to issue summons to the Head of the HR Department at Freyr Regulator Global Solutions and Services at Levet 4, Building No.H_08, phoenix Sex, Hitech City-2, Phase 2, Gachibowli, Hyderabad to produce the latest salary particulars of the respondent No.2. 4. Upon considering these petitions, the court berow passed the impugned orders by holding that none of the parties had filed affidavits of disclosure of assets and liabilities till this date and by observing that calling for those documents at this stage even before filing the assets and liabilities affrdavits as per the guidelines in the djctum of Rajnesh v. Neha and others _ 2021 2 SCC 324 would be premature, dismissed the petitions. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner herein filed the present petitions. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that pending proceedings of the interim maintenance application, the 1 i j i I I i I i ,: j t I 3 NTR-J Cttps 1266&t246]O25 petitions were filed to secure information from the concerned institutions about the respondent No.2's monthly earnings. However, though the Court below had observed that the assets and liabilities statements are not filed, erroneously dismissed the petitions Thus the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. I have perused the materials on record.

6. 7. As per the submissions it is clear that during the pendency of petition for interim monetary arrangement, the petitioner had filed these petitions. lt is also admitted fact that by the date of impugned order the assets and liabilities statements have not been filed by either of the parties. As per the dictum of Raineesh v. Neha (supra) for determining the prayer in the petition the parties are bound to file their assets and liabilities statement wherein the respondent No.2 may bring in the required details called for by the petitioner. ln this view, the conclusion drawn by the Court below is found reasonable. Be that as it may, though at this stage the application of the petitioner to bring the relevant facts determining the respondent No,2's claim for interim relief is oversoon, the requirement of these facts cannot be disregarded. Even after filing of the affidavits if the petitioner still require details sought for in the impugned petitions, reserving the rights of the 4 NT&J Ctlps-12(f,&1286 2.025 petitioner to file application afresh before the trial Couft would be appropriate to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly ordered. L With these observations, Criminal petition Nos.1266 aod 1286 of 2025 are disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ,/TRUE COPY// SD/- V. KAVITHA PUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To {. The lll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First C 2. TwotCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Ranga Reddy District. at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. (OUT)

3. O-ne CC to SRl. T SHARATH, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRl.Mohd. Yousuf, Advocate [OPUCI 5. Two CD Copies tY kul/gh HIGH COURT DATED:03/04/2025 t I t, I COMMON ORDER CRLP .Nos1266 &1286 OF 2 i ni, ) ie ?. ,.|,\ t I (:l t) rj/-. * 15 JUL ?[25 *t:, 1)1',.r r, .-,-.-1c'1 \-a____._ DISPOSING OF THE CRL.PETIITONS vt- @ LI +l"( I i I I.t,l