The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER WRIT PETITION No.19OS OF 2019 ORDER: The writ petition is filed for a Mandamus declaring the FIR No.18 of 2018 on the file of SHO, Women Police Station, Begumpet, Hyderabad, charge sheet dated 30.05.2018 in CC.No.186 of 2018 on the file oi XV Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Nampally, Hyderabad, and the Look-out circular dated 04.06.2018 issued by the Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Bureau of Immigration, New Delhi, against the 1"t petitioner, at the instance of Respondent No. 3 (DCP, North Zone, Hyderabad), as illegal and abuse of process of Criminal Law and to quash the same.

2. Petitioners Nos. I to 3 have been arrayed as Accused Nos. 1 to 3 in CC No. 186 of 2018. Petitioner No. 1 is the husband of defacto complainant/Respondent No. 4, while Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are his father and mother, respectively.

3. A look-out circular dated 04.06.2018 was issued against Petitioner No. 1. However, this Court, vide an order dated

01.O2.2O19 in IA No. I of 2019 in W.P. No. 1905 of 2079, granted a stay on his arrest for one month. Following this, Petitioner No. 1 , 4 travelled from the USA to India and filed CrimirLal Petition No 47812019 in CC No. 186 of 2018, seeking the ret:all of the Non- Bailable Warrant (NBW) issued against him. This Court, vide an order dated 22.O2.2019, allowed the petition and recalled the NBW issued against Accused No. 1/Petitioner No. 1. Consequently, the look-out circular rssued by Women Police Station. Begumpet, was recalled by the Inspector of Poiice, Women Police Station, on

23.O2.20t9.

4. The complaint dated 05.12.2O17,lodged by respondent no 4, served as the basis for registering the FIR under Sections 498-4 and 506 of the IPC. The contents of the complaint are extracted below: " I Soumga, o91e 32 yeors, I maried 11 Aears back with Mr, B Sikanth. I arn stctging itt USA with mg husband ]1. Sikanth. We haue two children. IshuLarya 9 years, Aniudh i5 gears. Mg in-lauLs /-7n6rths back shifted to India and brouqht us, .lfof allotuing to tallc u,tith my husband. Doing harassment here at home. Theg are making me to u.tork at home b.g remouing tuorkers. Big current utircs are open and cement plastering uork is going on and made rne t() Luater with sponge for curing or,, that. If I get current sltock u,ho is responsible? Theg haue taken mg cell phone and. delcted all numbers. Not allowing to lalk tuith mg fathcr artd hr.s srdr,'. Etcrg dag at l-Lome both of tlrcn scolclirry me as theg ltke. 'l'lrcg haue takert out mA passftoft and mg 5 children's passports too. If I go to their home, theg close the door on my face and told not to come. A month ago, mA husband came to India for a month and left without telling me. In-lau.ts did not allou me to talk utith mg husband and obstntcted and disturbed. Scolding me saging that I am not required. 5 to 6 times they organised meetings u-tith our societA members and said Soumg a uill be sent to {.ISA but theA did not send. In front of 25 society members, brother-in-laut of Sudhakor, i.e., Brahmachory threatened that he knows Nageem follouers and will kill our 20 familg members and threut the table. In front of society president, D Kishan Rao, Sudhakar scold euery one ofus as bastard, saging that what is our capacity to hold me. Proposed meeting at societA building but caLled us at Ggmkhana club for meeting. I L'ent LDith mA daddg to school to see the children and sent them in school uan to home. After sending them my father-in-law came and took photos and uideos of us stating that I am kidnapping the children and disturbed. In-laws said llou did B Tech so do job and take care of Aour lik. MU lrf. became a question mark. I will be staAing uith mA kids and mA husband and u.thereuer my husband uitl be. Requesting gou to do justice. I pray gou."

5. Upon receiving the complaint, the Sub-lnspector of Police, Women Police Station (WPS), Begumpet, registered FIR No. 18 of 20 18 against Petitioners Nos. 1to 3 on 03.02.2018 under Sections 498A and 506 of the IPC. Notably, although the complaint was dated 05.12.2017, the endorsement indicates its receipt only on

03.O2.2018,leading to the registration of the FIR on the same day. 6

6. Apart from the complaint dated 05.72.2077, respondent no. 4 had lodged trvo more complaints with the DCP on l\.11.2077 and 23.01.2018

7. The complalnt dated 11.11.2017 is extractecl below "We used to liur: in USA. Mg father-in-lau.t brou.ght me and klds to [rtd[a saying rny husband utill come in on,z month. But mg husband came back after 5 months and goirtg back alone. He is trot talkittg to me nor taking me and kids bock to USA. Mg ktcl s ctre there with them rtght now and t,4e!J are not allowing me to enter the house. Mg husband tuill be leauing to USA tomorroLD. They are creating that I haue, psgchiatic problem and telling me to take treatment. But .( don't ltaue ang problem and I am perfectlg normal. I uant to go bac to USA ulith nty htLsband and kids. Please help me solue mg problem. Mg In-latus are troubling me here at home since 5 months. l'heg are troubling the kids too. My dctttgh.ter is 9 years old. My son is 5 years old. Theg are both citizens of USA. Theg are telling my kids that I am a bad mummg. Mg father-in-lau, keeps coming into mg room when I otn sleeping. Theg are telhng me to take care of mA hfe mg sel'. Theg are not letting my husband talk to me, Theg are not sending my kids to mU perents house. theg are taking uideo clips of me tuhen I am crtlirtg. Tltey use uulgar ctrtd bad. words and shout at ne. Tha!) l:lrLnrc rne Jor euerythirtg at home eue,t []' I don't do ant Lurortg. My moth.er-in-law keeps telling mg L,lsband to tofture tne and leaue me and he can remarrA. S,'ttz also told me to do sutcide uhen mA mom expired. Theg us<:d to come to USA and trotLbLe me." l

8. The complaint dated 23.01.2018 is extracted below: " As per gour direction, I went to the women police station Begumpet for stopping mg husband going to USA without familg and without organising marrtage counselling at Bharosa centre. Euen after continuous police enquiry, my husband u.tent back to USA utithout attending police station. After 2 u-teeks mg children Aishutaiga and Anirudh were handed ouer to me on Sth December 2017. At the same time, tulo side families requisition, we uent for settlement among elder of community under the leadership of Mr Dubbaka Kishan Rao. Community elders discussed ertensiuely and could not able to come to a conclusion. Mr. Sudhakar B (father- in-law) shouted on eueryone in front of the elders at Secunderabad Communitg centre. Aftersometime Mr Murthg, utho is the partner in Mr. Sudhakar business, contacted me on phone. With his discussion, I come to understand euergthing will be ftne. Graduallg bt1 sending my children to my in-latus place frequently, on euery holiday. Now mg children are liuing with them. All of a sudden nouL I haue receiued a legal notice from B. Sikanth S/o B. Sudhakar mentioning that Mr. Sudhakor has taken GPA to fight tuith me in this unethical and derogatory diuorce filing. I don't haue any intention to take diuorce. I tuant to liue tuith my familg along with mg husband and children in USA. Wheneuer mg in-lauts were uisiting USA, mg husband behaued ruthlesslg and mg tife has been tougher dag bg dag. Mg In-laws are the main reason for mg miserable life condition and family disturbances. I am requesting Aou to help me to go to USA or call my husband for familg counselling to India. I cannot be happy with my in-lau-ts deceitful actiuities and continuous torture, besides bringing me to family courts uithout the presence of mg husband." 8

9. Learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that the marital life of the petitioner no. 1 was troubied on accourrl of the peculiar and abnormal behaviour of the respondent no. 4. Ihe behaviour of respondent no.4 rvas psychopathic and she never cared for her husband-petitioner no.1-or family members. She further acted cruelly towards the chrldren, and they were beate,n severely and indiscriminately. Respondent no.4 started alleging that the petitioner no.1 rvas having an illicit relationship with his own mother and sister. The abnormal conduct of respondent No.4 led the petitioner no. 1to seek medical advice and treatment of Respondent No.4. She was treated at Asha HospiteLl, Banjara Hills, which specializes in psychiatric disorders. The doctors diagnosed her with Delusional Disorder. characterized bv a skeptical and susprclous nature. a lack of empathy, and difficulty 1n maintaining enrpathetic relationships. On acoount of the respondent no. 4. petitior-rer no. I suffered anxrety and a depressive mood.

10. Learned Counsel further argued that false c.c,mplaints were filed, which is evident from the fact that the Family Court granted divorce on the basis of cruelty meted out by the respondent no. 4. Further, custody of the children was also handed over to the 9 petitioner no. 1, mainly on the ground that the respondent no. 4 was not competent to raise children I 1 . The learned counsel has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of A.P. u. M. Madhusud,han Raor and Dara Lakshmi Naragana & Others u. State of Telangana & Anotherz

12. It was argued on behalf of the respondent no. 4 that, as seen from the allegations made in the complaint, the offence under Section 498-A of IPC is made out. The events that transpired in the life of the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no. 4 reflect that there were disputes between them, and the complaint makes out a prima facie offence punishable under Section 498-4. In the said circumstances, this Court, in quash proceedings, cannot consider the background of the case and has to look into the allegations levelled in the complaint

13. It is on record that the petitioner No. 2 had arranged an appointment for respondent no. 4's treatment at Asha Hospital, Banjara Hills, a specialized institution for psychological disorders However, respondent no. 4 refused to undergo treatment without '(ZOOA) fS Supreme Court Cases 582 ? 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3582 10 Petitioner No. 1, asserting that he too required medical intervention. Complying with her demand, Petitioner No. 1 travelled from the USA to lndia on 05.10.20 17. Following a psychological evaluation on 12.1O.2O17, respond.ent no. 4 was diagnosed with 'Delusional Disorder,' characterize1 by suspicion, lack of empath1,, and difficulty 1n maintainin g, relationships. Petitioner No. 1, rn turn, was diagnosed with depressive mood and anxiety. The medical report of respondent no. 4 wzrsi filed as ExP1. ).4. Subsequently, petitioner no. 1 filed O.P. No. 119 of 2018 on 2O.O1.2O18 in the Family City Civil Court, seeking divorce on grounds of cruelt-r and mental disorder under Sectrons 13(1)(ia)(iii) and 26 of the Hinclu Marriage Act. The court, in its order dated

30.06.2023, granted the divorce decree, dissolving the marriage on the grounds of crueltl' ar-rd incurable mental disorcler 1 5. During the divorce proceedings in the Family Court, respondent no.4 herein alleged that the petitioners herein harassed her for additional dowry, claiming that her father had given Rs. 30,21,000, along with 5O tulas of gold and 10 kg of silver, to petitioner no. t herein as per the petit-c,ners' demand However, the Judge noted that respondent no.4 herein admitted she did not knorv ho',v her father procured Rs. 30 lakhs and 11 lacked any bills to substantiate the gold and silver transactions. Furthermore, in response to a legal notice issued by petitioner no. t herein seeking a divorce, respondent no.4 herein did not mention the alleged dowry given at the time of marriage or any harassment regarding additional dowry.

16. The Judge further observed that in the complaint forming the basis of FIR No. 18 of 2018, no mention was made of dowry demands. Similarly, in the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement recorded in the case, both respondent no. 4 herein and her father denied giving dowry at the time of marriage. The Judge pointed out that respondent no. 4 herein raised the dowry harassment allegations for the first time in her counterclaim, despite asserting that she had been harassed for additional dowry soon after marriage. Notably, she had not lodged any complaint from 2006 to 2Ol7 regarding dowry-related harassment.

17. The Judge also observed that, as per the Psychoiogical Evaluation Report by Asha Hospital, respondent no. 4 herein was referred for psychological evaluation due to complaints of marital disturbances and suspicion regarding her husband's fidelity. The Judge specifically referred to one of the findings in the report, which stated: 12 '?esponses indtcate the presence of stgnificant conflicts uith her husband. She belieues she is und.etr immense stress due to his behauiour and feels that he does not understand her. She perceiues herself tc be facing numerous troubles in her life."

18. The report also recommended reguiar psychtaLtric fo11ow-ups, individual counselling, and marital counselling Based on the evidence on record, the Judge concluded that the findings confirmed respondent no.4's suspicious nature toward petitioner no. t herein anrl observed that false character asisassination bv either spouse rvould invarrably constitute matrimonial crueltl,

19. Despite respondent no.4 herein claiming tl-rat she was not interested in divorce and rvas always willing to live rvith petitioner no t herein, the Juclge noted that she did not take any steps to reconcile or rejorn him. In fact, she never filed a ltetition for the restitutron of conjugal rights. On the other hand, it was petitioner no. 2 herein who had written a letter dated 1 2. 1 I .2OI7 to the President of Vrshwakarma Sangham, requesting mediation between respondent no. 4 herein and petitioner no. t herein During the conciliation meeting, the elders wlro were called, namely Dr. Anand Prabhu and Mr. Satyamurthy, interacted with both parties and advised respondent no. 4 herein to continue her 13 medical treatment and attend Satsang meetings to help her overcome her psychological condition. They also suggested that petitioner no. t herein return after some time and take his wife and children back to the USA. Although both respondent no. 4 herein and petitioner no. t herein initially accepted this advice, the very next day, father of the respondent no. 4 herein abused the mediators and dismissed their suggestions as incorrect.

20. The Judge also referred to the resolution passed by the Vishwakarma Sangham, which stated that the mediation failed due to non-cooperation from the side of respondent no. 4 herein Based on this, the Judge conciuded that respondent no. 4 herein failed to prove that she was genuinely willing to reconcile with petitioner no. I herein. Conversely, petitioner no. I herein demonstrated that he had made efforts to resolve the issues through mediation and counselling, with the involvement of elders and Vishwakarma Sangham, but these attempts unsuccessful due to non-cooperation of the respondent no. 4 herein.

21. Furthermore, the Judge observed that there was little to no emotional bond between respondent no.4 herein and her children, as the children themselves refused to go rvith her. It was 14 also noted that although respondent no.4 herein had handed over custody of the children in 2017, she never filed a petition seeking custody thereafter. Additionally, she did not file a petition for visitation rights, r.,,,hich would have demonstratr:<1 her intent to malntarn a relatronshrp with her children. Thrs iack of effort further reinforced the conclusion that there was no substantial affection bet'"veen respondent no.4 herein and the <;hildren.

22. The Judge also addressed the allegation of the respondent no. 4 herein in her cornplaint dated 05.l2.2o1lz, wherein she claimed that petitioner nos. 2 and 3 herein had taken her passport. However, this ailegation was found t,r be false, AS respondent no.4 herein had subsequently fi.I,:d a separate complaint before the lnspector of Police, Narayanguda,

07.02.2018, stating that she lost her passport whik traveling from Narayanguda to Koti at around 3:30 PM. She had requested the police to help trace her passport, contradicting her ear.lier claim,

23. Ultimately, the divorce petition was allc'rved based on substantial evidence provrng abnormal and cruel behavior of respondent no. 4 herein. Vorce recordin5ls, and email communications sr-rbmitted in court revealed that .respondent no. 4 herein had used derogatory language against her in-laws, 15 referring to her mother-in-law as a "bitch, monster, devil," her sister-in-law as a "skeleton bitch," and parents of the petitioner no. I herein as "bastards." The Judge determined that such behaviour constituted cruelty, justifying the dissolution of the marrlage.

24. Additionally, petitioner no. 1 filed GWOP No. 4 of 2022 under Sections 7 and 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act read with Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, seeking permanent custody of his minor children. The Principal Family Court, in its order dated 09.12.2022, granted permanent custody of the children to petitioner no. t herein. The decision was based on abnormal behaviour of the respondent no. 4 herein and the children's reluctance to meet or stay '"vith her. Moreover, respondent no. 4 herein remained ex parte ln the proceedings, demonstrating a Iack of interest in contesting the petition. Respondent no. 4 herein has neither sought to set aside the order nor appealed against the ex-parte order.

25. A chronological table outlining the key events in this case is as follows: 16 Date

24.O4.2006 2L.O4.2008 Notable Events On this day, Petitioner no. I and Respondent no. 4 lvere married. On this da1,, Petitioner no. I and Respondent no 4's daughter, Aishwariya, was born.

07.06.2012 Or-r this day, their son, Amruth., was born

72.LO.2017 tt.tt.20t7

12.7L.2017 Psychoiogical evaiuation repo:t dated 12.IO.2017 of Respondent No. 4 at Asha ^-lospital. st complaint filed by Resporrdent No. 4 Letter dated l2.ll.2oL7 from Petitioner No.2 to the President of Vishvrzrkarma Sangham, requesting mediation between Respondent No. 4 and Petitioner No. 1. o5.12.2017 Second complaint filed by Resp,ondent No. 4 t4.L2.2017

20.ot.201a Letter dated 18.12.2O17 concerning the complaint fili:rl on 05.12.2017. Petitroner No. 1 filed O.P. I'lc. 119 of 2018 on 20.Ol.2Ol8 in the Family Citv Civil Court, seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty and mental disorder.

23.O1.20L4 Third complaint hled by Respondent No. 4

03.02.2018 l FIR registered in Crime No I Sections 49BA and 506 of cornplaint dated 05. 12.2O17 18 of 2018 under IPC based on the

25.O2.2022 Filrng of GWOP No. 4 of 2022 17

09.12.2022 Decree dated 09.12.2022 in GWOP No. 4 of 2022

30.o6.2023 Decree dated 30.06.2023 in O.P. No. 119 of 2018 As already discussed in the earlier part of this judgment, there were three complaints that were frled, and respondent no.4 underwent treatment for mental disorders. She was diagnosed with mental illness and treated. The differences between respondent no. 4 and petitioner no. 1 and his family were on account of the abnormal conduct and behaviour of respondent no.

4. Though it cannot be said that a false complaint was deliberately filed, however, in the background of the mental condition of respondent n.o.4, being delusional and being treated for her condition, the allegations made in the complaint, the family Court proceedings wherein the allegations are the same, and the subsequent statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has to be looked into.

26. A bare reading of the three complaints together would reflect apprehension of the 4th respondent that she may be deserted by 1"t petitioner. In the present complaint, respondent no. 4 narrated the harassment in the home and stated that current wires were present and that she was asked to water the cement plastering 18 with a sponge. She questioned in the complaint as to wl'lo would be responsible il she got an electric shock. She erlso stated that she was scolded even, dav and that the doors of Lrer matrimonial house were closed on her face. Other allegations ,,vere also made which have no connectron wrth one another. 27 . The complaint appears to be an outcome c,[ her delusional mental condition. There was no connection between the allegations made, and the narration of events i;r the complaint reflects vagueness based on assumptions.

28. The Honourable Supreme Court rn M. Madhusudhan Rao (Supra), held as lo1lows " 16. Irt order io appreciate the iual stands, it would be useful to noticc the statutorll proutsions. Section 498-.1\ IPC makes "cr"Lelty" by husband or his relatiues a punishable offence. The utord "crueltg' is defined in the Explanation appended to the said section. Scction 498-4 IPC u-tith Explanation rea:.ds thus: "498-A. Husbo.nd or relatiue of husband of a u.toman subjecting her to crueltg. --Wltoeuer, being the husband or ti^Le relatiue of the husband of a uoman, subjects such woman to <:rueltg shall be punished u,ith impisonment for a term uLhich moy extend to three years attd shall also be liable to fine. Explonation.-.-For the purposes of this secticn, 'cruelty' meons- (a) ang uilful conduct ruhich is of such a nature cs is tikelg to diue the u)otnon to commit suicide or to cause graue [njurg or 19 danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or phgsical) of the u)oman; or (b) harassment of the LDoman where such harassment is with a uieu to coercing her or ang person related to her to meet anA unlauful demand for anA propertA or ualuable secuity or is on account of failure by her or anA persott related to her to meet such demand."

17. Thus, prouiding a new dimension to the concept of "cruelty", clause (a) of Explonation to Section 498-A IPC postulates that any uillful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to diue a u)oman to commit suictde uould constitute "crueltg". Such utilful conduct, which is likelg to cause graue injurg or danger to life, limb or heolth (uhether mental or phgsical) of the woman u,tould also amount to "crueltg". Clause (b) of the Explanation prouides that harassment of the Luoman uhere such harassment is with a uieu to coercing her or ang person related to her to meet anA unlauful demand for ong property or ualuable secuity or is on account of failure bg her or anA person related to her to meet such demand, uould also constitute "crueltg" for the purpose of Section 498-A IPC. lB. /l is plain that as per clause (b) of the Explanation, which, according to learned counsel for the Slate, is attracted in the instant case, euery harassment does not amount to "cruelty" u.tithin the meaning of Section 498-A IPC. The deftnition stipulates that the harassment has to be utith a definite object of coercing the u.nman or anA person related to her to meet an unlawful demand. In other u,tords, for the purpose of Section 498-A IPC, harassment simpliciter is not "crueltg" and it is onlg when harassment is committed for the purpose of coercing a u)omon or ang other person related to her to meet an unlawful 20 demand for propeftA, etc. tlnt it amounts iro "cruelty" punishable uttder Section 498-A IPC."

29. Clause (a) ol the explanation to Section 498-.{ of IPC defining 'cruelty', requires anv rvillful conduct that is of such a nature as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide

30. Clause (b) of the explanation requires harassment for the purpose of meeting anv unlawful demand. Clar:se (b) is not attracted in this ceise because there is no all:gation in the complaint regardrng any kind of harassment for dowry or that harassment was rnflicted to meet such an unlawful demand.

31. The narration of the events in the complaint ,loes not refer to any deliberate conduct on the part of the petitioners that was likely to drive a woman to commit suicide. ;\:art from the complaint that rvas registered S an FIR, two rrore complaints were iodged on 11.11.2Ol7 and 23.01.2018, which have already been extracted

32. In the complaint filed on Il.Il.2O17, resprondent no. 4 stated that the petitioners had falsely created eL situation by claiming that she had a psychiatric problenl and needed treatment. Horvever. she claimed that she had no such problem 27 This claim in the complaint is apparently false because she was, in fact, diagnosed with a mental illness and treated by doctors.

33. The complaint dated ll.l1.2ol7 does not establish any willful conduct on the part of the petitioners that would amount to cruelty under Section 498-A IPC.

34. The next complaint was filed on 23.01.2018. The said complaint was not registered by the police; however, a GD entry was made, and it was endorsed that the complaint was received on 13.11.2017. The complaint dated 23.01.2018 mentions her prior complaint to Begumpet WPS on 13.11.2017 and that petitioner no. 1 left for the USA. She also mentioned that the children were living with the petitioners and that a legal notice had been sent to her for divorce.

35. In the complaint dated 23.01.2018, 4tn respondent stated that she wanted to live with petitioner no. 1 and her children in the USA. She further stated that her in-laws were continuously torturing her and taking her to family courts without the presence of petitioner no. 1

36. When all the previous complaints are considered along with the findings of the learned Family Court Judge while granting 22 divorce, and also the order passed granting guardianship rights to petitioner no. 1. rt is the petitioner who underwerLt several Court proceedings and also criminal investigation 37 . The background of a given case must be considered in its entiretlz. The .u-gument made by the learneC counsel for respondent no.4 that the Court should onlv examine the allegations in the complaint is incorrect. Even u,hen considering the complaint, AS already discussed, the ave.rments in the complaint do not constitute cruelty. The allegations in the present case r,vould be er repetition of the allegations; and counter allegatrons madc by the 1st petitioner and 4th respondent in the divorce proceedtngs. The 4tr, respondent has to face questions about her mental condition, which would further traumatize her

38. Ir-r the peculiar facts of the present case, rvherein multiple complaints rvere filed by respondent no.4, and none of the complaints contain ar-rv allegations that satisfy the ingredients required to establish cruelty. Though this Court sy mpathizes with the mental illncss of respondent No.4, however the criminal proceedings against tl-re petitioners for the rezrsons discussed above cannot be permitted to continue

39. Accordingly, the petitioners succeed in the present writ petition. The proceedings against them in CC No. 1g6 of 201g on the file of XV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Nampally, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed. That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above. Witness the Hon'ble the ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL' on this Wednesday, the Second day of April, Two Thousand and Twenty Five' / //TRUE COPY// SO/.P. PADMANABHA REDOY UTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER Qne Fair Copy to THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. EURENDER (For His LordshiPs' Kind Perusal) Ihe Frincipal Secretary, Home Deparlment, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hvderabad. The SHO, Women Police Station, Begumpel Hyderabad The Qeputy CommiEsioner of Police, North Zone, Hyderabad fne Unionbf lndia,, Ministry of Home Affairs, Bureau of lmmigration, New Delhi The Deputy Commissionerbf Police,, DD, CCS (LOC Cell), Hyderabad 1'1 L.R. Copies The Under'secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi. th" S,iCi"tary, Telgngana Advocqtes Association Library, High Qourt Buildings' Hvderabad Qhe CC to Sri Kal-<ara Venkata Rao Advopate LOPUCI iwo CCs to GP F;i t'tome, Hish Court fQr the State of Telangana touTl I One CC io Smt. Soumya Rekin, Party ip Person(OFUQ) One CC to SriKrishna'Kumar Kovvuri SQ for Central Government (QPUC) Two QD CoBies To, 1 a 3 4 E 6 7 I I 10 11 12 13 MBQ BS HIGH COURf DATED: 0210412025 I:-=-r 1 H AI0 BP 2025 \i , o {'. \ { ORDER WP.No.1905 of 2019 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS