High Court · 2025

smtNsrideviD19,\v;Y^s.!t{',fl 3:""11?*gE"3rtti,?::^Tl"Ji#l[?'L3'n,..' Manju Enclave, Nethallnaga District ....1"t ResPondent

2. Dist. Welfare Officer, Protection Officer (Under PWDC Act 2005)' O/o Dept' for women, cr'iro'tn,'rii''io'rli''ii si cltl'"ns' Medchal-Malkaigiri District' . ...2nd ResPondent

3. The State of Telangana' Rep by its Public Prosecutor' High Court of - Telangana, HYderabad' ....3'd ResPondent 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 call for records pending on the file of the ll Addl Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkaigiri in DVC No 62123 and quash the same against the petitioner to secure the ends of justice' .,: I.A. NO:1 oF 2025 petition under Se stated n rh e \4em., a nd #";, :;:,::.']:; ::::i:":lil" :.,J: ilff :: H; be preased to stay a' further proceedings pending on the fire of the , Additionar Metroporitan Magislrate. Ir/arkajgiri in DVC No. 62 0f 2023ti, pending disposar of the main Criminal Crriginat petition. This Petition (:omino on fnr hoari^^ ,,^^^ .- jl.'],ll';ffi T:'[J::]:::,#[.J Grounds of cr m na Riyazuddin, Advocate for the petitioner and the Assistant purrric prosecutor (TGiAP) on behalf of the Respondent No.3. "Jl""J The Court made the following Order:- .a-) THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUI{ANTI NAL PETITIONNo.929 2025 CRIMI ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short tsNSS) by the petitioner to quash the proceedings against her in D.V.C.No.62 of 2023 pending on the file of the II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate' Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Malkajgirt

2. Heard Mr' Syed Riyazuddin' learned counsel for petitioner, and Ms' S' Madhavi' learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State' Perused the material on record. J A petition under Sections 12' 18' 19 atd 2l of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act' 2005 (for short, the DVC Act, 2005) is filed by respondent No.1/complainant' Allegations in the petition are that she is married to Sudheer, on 25.02.2021 and at the time of marriage certain amount of cash and household articles were 2 ; glven and tilat marn2ge was perforrned on the facilitation by petitioner. Petitioner herein is the sister of Sudheer. JAK, J |:RLP 929 2025 ,s

4. It is sr,ated in the petition that responde nt No. 1 marriage wa:t perforned with Sudheer without discr" ssing the fact that hr:r husband was suffering from psyr:hological disorder and r-hat his previous marriage was broker because of his psychological disorder. It is further aller3ed that respondent No. 1,s husbald has been harassing her physically and mentall.y itnd necked her out from the house. lt is also alleged that her husband used to abuse her, her bro:.her arrd parents in fiith.y language and that Sudheer,s unpre,dictable and psychotic behaviour has caused lot of mentai triruma to

5. It is alleged that at the behest of petitioner, marriage is performed ald petitioner instigates Sudheer and her hrrsband was harassing her, her parents and brother. Hence the compliant. It is also aJleged that her husbard threate,ned to kill her 6 Learned counsel for petitioner submits that allegations It 1s further submitterl that made are base ie:ss and fa]se. 3 JAK, J CRLP-929-2025 petitioner is not residing in the same house as alleged by respondent No'1' It is a-lso submitted that charge sheet is filed against petitioner under Section 498-A of IPC' That the ad,dress of the petitioner in the charge sheet is different to that of the address shown in the DVC petition' It is pointed out that the petitioner herein was residing at the address in the charge sheet for the rast r0 years along with her husband and it is correct address' It is submitted by learned counsel that in the charge sheet filed, the investigating authority has stated the.correct address, whereas an incorrect address was mentioned in DVC petition only to rope the petitioner for creating ground of harassment' It is further subinitted that the allegations levelled against petitioner in the DVC petition are false and are only to implicate petitioner in the DVC proceedings' Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that once 7 . an application/petition is Iiled under Section 12 the DVC Act' 2005, the proceedings under Sectio n 482 of Cr'P'C are not maintainable before this Court and that there is an alternative remedy available unde;pection 29 of the DVC Act' 4 JAK, J t )RLP 929 2025 2005 and pr:titioner has to approach appropriate filing of arr application. Court by

8. Heard learned counsels, perused considered t-r-re rival submissions the rerlorci and

9. Respondent No. I /complainant filed a complairrt alleging that petition er has arranged marriage with her brother_ Sudheer with respondent No.1. On perusal of the pelition it is observed thrLl there are no specific allegations against petitioner except stating that petitioner has instig:rted her brother Sudhet:r.

10. Charge ssheet is filed, statements a_re recorded. Address of the petitioner. in charge sheet is Lokanada Street, K.l.Nagar, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, while the address of the petitroner in DVC.No.62 of 21023 is Nakkiran Street, Alwar Thiru Nagar, Valasalavakkam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu. The charge srheet is filed in August '.2.022 and, the DVC petition is filed befrre the Court in September 2023. 5 JAK, J 1RIP 929 2025

11. Be ttrat as it may' this Court is not inclined to delve into these aspects, as ttle petitioner has alternative remedy by way of Section 29 of t.ne DVC Act' 2005'

12. In the light of the judgm ent in Gadddmeedi Nagam,ani o. Strrte of Telangancr ' a petition to quash the proceedings in Domestic Violence Case is not maintainable' as Section 29 of the DVC Act, 2OO5 provides an efficacious remedy by way of an appeal against the act of the Court below in taking cogntzance.and numbering the D'V'C' The petitioners a're at liberty to avail the said remedy' The proceedings under Section 482 of Cr'P'C are not sustainable' This Court is not inclined to take a different view to that of the judgment in Gaddameedi Nagamanils case (supra 1)' 13. Having considered the submissions and the entire factualmatrixofthecase,thisCourtisoftheviewthat appea-rance of petitioner herein can be dispensed with and is hereby dispensed with the following conditions' |4.Itismadeclearthatpetitionershallpresentherself when summoned by the Court' if her presence is required by t , , I ' zors 1z; e.Lo icnr.l lea 6 JAK, J :RLP 929 2025 /--]. the Court. petitioner shalt file affidavit(s) that slre will not dispute her iCentity ald that the proceedings can gir on in her absence, to be conducted by her counsei(s) Learned counsel(s) fru petitioner shall represent before the ..rial court without fail cn all dates. petitioner shall not dispute the proceedings conducted in her absence This order s i-rall stard vacated au1.rn2ti6alry, if petitioner fa s to at tend the proceedings as and when summoned by court and zrlso when the counsel(s.r representing petitioner fais to atte,d court proceedings rn any of the dates. Other remedies available under law can be avajled and the petitioner is at .riberer to avail the same. Any observations made in this order shall not influence the Oourt below r.t hile considering or conclt ding the case at the tinre oftrial. 15 Accordingly, this Criminal petition is disposed oI Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// ASSrsrlllrriJAYrSiSAERE [*H" N OFFICER '1. The ll Additional tVletropolitan Magistrate, Mechal tu ' Ilo"",."tot"l"rrr''"et 3. One CC to Sri Sye,j Riyazuddin. Advocate tOpUCl 4 .Two CD Copies t'ri" p'o"ecutor, High ."r* r.r ;: :;::" "?,;],r r;llli''' HIGH COURT DATED:03 t1zt2O2S i ORDER CRLP.No.929 of 2025 l trE Sf,1 r4: o 1 0 APfi 2025 t o .rSnntCv\: -ai o (\( C -| DISPOSING OF THE CRLP