The High Court · 2025

2. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT,'RESPONDENT NO.1 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 praying that in the reasons stated in the accompanying counter affidavit the Respondeqt No.2 herein prays the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim stay passed in lA No 1 of 2025 in Crl P No 944 ol 2025 daled 2910112025: This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argumerts of Sri C SHARAN REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and and Sri E.Ganesh, Asst. public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and Sri Phanindra Bhargav M, Advocate for the Respondent No.2; The Gourt made the following: ORDER ,= .-- ."/ Y TIIE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.944 OF 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petrtions is fileC nnder Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'the BNSSJ to quash the proceedings against the pe titioner/ accused No.2 in Crime No.2 af 2025 on thc filc of Women Police Station, Khammam, registe red for rhe offences punishabie under Sections 85, 35 1(2) reaci ir,th 3(5) of the Bharatiya N;.raya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'the BNS') and Sections 3, 4 of Dov,rry Prohibition Act, 196 1 (ior short, thc Act') .

2. The brief facts of the case aie that the marriage of accused No,1 and resocr:ient i.,ic.2 was solemnized on

23.06.2023 at Madanpaiie vililrge, Paiaveru ivianCal. Karnataka Staie ar-rd at the time .-.rf marriage, ihe parents of respondent No.2 gave cash of Rs.5,5O,000/-, 3 tulas of gold and household articles worth Rs.50,000/ to accused No.1 as dowry. After the marriage, the couple lead their marilal iife happily for three months and thereafter, accused No. 1, along with other accused, used to harass respondent I''1o.2 physicaiiy, mentaliy and also used to threaten her .,,"-ith dire consequences for want of adclitional dowry. it is stated- that accuseC lJo. 1 was already 2 SI(S,J CtLP.Na.944 oJ 2025 married and having two children, however, he married respondent No.2 by suppressing the said fact. Hence, respondent No.2 filed a complaint uide Crime No.2 of 2025 before the Khammam Women Police Station.

3. Heard Sri C.Sharan Redciy, learned corrnsel for the petitioner as u,e1l as Sri E.Ganesh, learned Asr;islant Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1-State and Sri Phar idrzr Bhargar,, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

4. Lcarned counsel for the petitioners subrnjttec lhat the petitioner is innocent and he is no way concerncd with the alleged offences. He further submitted that r:xr:epl omnibus allegations, there are no specihc allegations against the petitioner. He also submitted thai in the abselicc ol specific allegations, the family members cannot be roped into the case. In support of his submissions, he placed rel;ance on Lhe judgments of the Apex Court in Kahkqshan Kausar @), Sono.m u. Strrte of Blharl, Neelu Chopra and. others u. Bharathi2 and prayed the Court to allow the Criminal Petitron b1, quashing the proceedings against the petitioner. 2022(6) SCC s99 2009(t 0) scc l8-r '*w.^/ :. :, 51(S,J CrLP.No.944 of 2025

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No. l-State opposed the submissions of the iearned counsel for the petitioner stating that investigation has not yet completed, at this stage, quashing of proceedings against the petitioner does not arise and prayed the Court to dismiss the Crirninal Petition.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that at the instigation of the petitioner/ accused No.2, accused No.1 harassed respondent No.2 for want of additional dowry. He lurther submitted that there are serious allegations against the petitroner. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Crirninal Petition.

7. In view of the nval submissions made by both the parties, this Court has perused the material available on record. As per the averments of the complaint, at the instigation of the petitioner/ accused No.2, accused No.1 harassed respondent No.2 physically and mentally for want of additional dowry. It is pertinent to note that except the above ailegation, there are no specihc allegations against the petitioner and he is no way concerned with the matrimonial disputes betu,een accused No.1 and respondent No.2. Admittedly, the only allegation against the 4 sxs,J <:rt-P.No.944 of 2025 petitioner/ accused No.2 is that he supported ac3used No.1 in harassing respondent No.2 for want of additional c[ori,.i1.

8. At this stage, it is relevant to note the observations madc by the Apex Court in Sto:te o.f Haryand dnd others os. BhajanlaF , whereunder the follorving cat egories \r'erc illustrated, r.r.hcrein the extraordrnary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent torvers unclcr Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be excrcised by thc lligh Court to prevent tire abusc cf process of any Court ol othern-is,: i() sa(iLirc the ends ofjusticc. The said categories are extractod as undcr: "1. Where the ctllegat.ions made in the First Information Report or the complaint, euen iJ theil o.re taken ot their face uolue ctnd accepted in Lhetr entiretll do not pima facie constitute ang oJ-tbr..c= or m.ake aut a co.se against the occLtsed.

2. V/here the allegaticns in the First lnfonnation- Report and other mateials, if any, accompanging the FIR do not disci.ose a. cogrizabLe affence, justifuing an inuesttgaticn bE polic:e officers under Section 1 56 ( 1) of the ( lor1,z except under an order of a Magistrate r.uithi, L tltc puruietu of Section 155 (2) of the Code.

3. ;.Uhere the uncontrouerted ollegatiott.; made in the FIR or complaint and the euic'.ence collected tn support of the same do not disclose the commission of ang offence and make <rut a case against the accused.

4. Where, the allegotions in the FIR d': not constitute a cogni-zabte offence but constitute onhl a nor'" cogni-zable ofrfunce, no inuestigation is permttted bg a police officer utthout an order of o 31992 supp (1) scc 335 I I i I I I I i I I I !.$ryEEryir ,x:aax--..-- /,,, -' \ 5 sr(s,J C|LP.No.944 of 2O2S Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code.

5. Wlere the allegations made in the FIR or complaint ore so obsurd and inherentlg improbable on the basis of uthich no prudent person can euer reach a just conctusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the acru sed.

6. Where there is on express Legal bor erryrafted in ang of the prorisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under uhich a ciminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/ or u.there there b o speciJic prouision in the Code or the concemed Act, prouiding eJfi.cacious redress for the grteuonce of the aggieued partg. 7. Where a cimino.l proceeciing is manifestlg attended uith mala Jide and/ or u'here the proceed.ing b malictously instituted with an ulteior motiue for ureaking uengeance on the accttsed and uith a uielu to spite him due to piuate and personal grudge."

9. F urther, it Preeti Gupta as. State of Jharkhandl and Geetq. Mehrotra o. Stdte oJ Uttdr Pradeshs, the Apex Court observed that the family members of accused No.l cannot be roped into the case. It is noteworthy that except the omnibus aliegations, there are no speciflc allegations against the father of accused No. 1 i.e., the petitioner/accused No.2, who is aged aboul TT years and suffering from old age ailments. Therefore, it can be said that category No. 1 as extracted above in the case of Bhajanlal (Supra) is relevant to the present case. Hence, this o 1zoro1 z scc ooz ' lzol.zy to scc 741 6 srs,J CiLP.No.944 oJ 2025 :..'. ,:j Court is of thc considered view that even if tne tnal is conducted, no purpose would be served and thelc are no other specific allegaiions against Lhe petitioner.

10. Accorciingl_r', the Criminal Petition is A11,>,,r,ed and the proceedings against rhe petitioner/accused No.2 in Crime No.2 of 2025 on the file of Women Pohce Station, I{haremam, are hereby quashed. Miscellanecus applications, if any penCi;tg. shall aiso stand closed. //TRUE COPY// s .IiREENIVASA REDDY ISTANT REGISTRAR { secflott oFFtcER To,

1. The Station House Officer, WpS Khammam, Khammarr 2. One CC to SRt C SHARAN REDDy Advocate [OpUC] 3. One CC to Sri phanindra^Btar,qavI\4 Advocate topuiJ 4. Two CCs to pUBLtC PROSECUITOR High a;;ri at Hyiierabad (oUT) 5. Two CD Copies vSM/gh HIGH COURT DATED:1810612025 ..: ..r. . . .::-.- 2I luti 2125 I ORDER CRLP.No.944 ot 2025 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION )