The High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

2. Smt. Jareena Begum, Wo Shanawaz Aged about 31 yeats, Occ. Housewife, R/o H.No.18-1 12, Balanagar, Guiri Nagar, Opp IDPL Colony, Cyberabad, R.R. District ...RespondenUDe-facto Complainant Petition under Section 482 o't Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the [Vlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the CC.No.4436 of 20'18 on the file of XXIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad dated 28-08-2018 and quash the same in the interest of justice I I I t l.A. NO: 2 OF 2019 Petition under section 482 of cr.p.c 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 against the Petitioners/AcCused Nos.l io 5 in cc No.4436 of 2018 on the file of XXIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad dated 28-08-20 18, pending disposal of the main criminal petition This Petition corning on for hearing, upon p6rusing the lrlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M A K MUKHEED, Advocate for the Petitioner and the public prosecutor (TG) on behalf ofthe Respondent No 1 and of Sri K.JAFFAR sAB, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 The Court made the following: ORDER ,) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.726 of 2OL9 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is fi]ed under Section 482 of Cr.p.C by the petitioners/accused Nos.l to 5 to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.4436 of 2018, pending on the lile of XXIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to5 Sri M.Vivekaranda Reddy, Iearned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State, and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the de facto complainant/respondent No.2, lodged a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Balanagar. In the said complaint, it is alleged that respondent No.2 is married to petitioner/ accused No. 1, and at the time of marriage, mother-in-law of respondent No.2, demanded cash of Rs.2,00,OOO/-, 4 tulas of gold, and house hold items as dowry. Though initially, respondent No.2 was taken care of for three years, however, harassment started by accused No. 1/husband for additional dowry of Rs.5,O0,O0O/-. Mother-in- 2 law / A2, father-in-law/.A3 including sister-in-1aw/A4 and brother-in-law/A5, supported accused No. 1 4 On 1,3.11.2017, the petitioners/ accused Nos.1 to 5 went to the house of the mother of respondent No.2, where she was living, and picked up a quarrel for Rs.5,00,OOOI- of additional dowry.

5. ,i l,earned counsel appearing for the petitioners/ accused Nos.l to 5 would submit that initially, a complaint was flled by respondent No.2 making several allegations against the husband, parents-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-inlaw in the year 20L7, in Uttar Pradesh. Thereafter, she filed a complaint against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5 in Hyderabad.

6. Having gone through the complaint filed by respondent No.2, against accused No. 1/husband in Uttar Pradesh, allegations of unnatural sex abuse are made against the husband and other brothers-in-law. The present complaint was filed alleging that respondent No.2 was sent to her mother's house, demancling additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- 3

7. Accused Nos.4 and 5 were already married and living separately. It appears that accused Nos.2 and 3, who are old- aged parents of accused No.1, are also living separately.

8. ln Kahkashan Ko;usar @Sonam aod others o. Sto,te of Biharl, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that unless there are specific and distinct allegations against the accused, the proceedings can be quashed. Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C', the ,, Court should be careful in proceeding against relatives, who are roped in on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations' g. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta u. State o! Jharkhandz, held that the Courts have to scrutinize the allegations made, with great care and circumspection, especially against husband's relatives, who were living in different cities and have rarely visited or stayed with the couple'

10. The proceedings against accused Nos.4 and 5 are quashed in view of general and omnibus allegations. I 1 1. In the light of the facts and submissions, since ttre petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 are old aged and residents of I I Uttar Pradesh, the appearance of the petitioners/ accused Nos'2 '1zozz1 o scc sss '?1zoro1 u scc oou 4 3t :II and 3 in C.C.No.4436 of 2018, pending on the file of the XXW Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, is dispensed with, subject to the following conditions: i) Petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 shafl always be represented by the counsel on record. ii) They shall file an affidavit stating that in their absence, the proceedings conducted by the counsel will not be disputed by them in any manner and they shall also not dispute their ,' identity. iii) They shall appear before the learned Magistrate as and when their presence is required. In the event of the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3,s failure to appear when the Court directs. this order dispensing their attendance shall stand cancelled. Accused No. 1 shall appear in the Court below.

12. Accorclingly, the Criminal petition is partly_allowed Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. \ To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/- N. SRIHARI T,A.NT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER '1. The XXIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpallv. Cvberabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Balanagar poiice Statron, Medchal Dist. 3. One CC to SRI ftll A K MUKHEED, Advocate tOpUCi 4. Two ccs to the Pubric prosecutor, High couri for tne state of rerangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies sM/plp { f' HIGH COURT DATED: 0310212025 ORDER CRLP.No.726 of 2019 ':-- L 6, /ls' o o 5 APri irr;: 2 I 'ti i o L'Fo ...n u .r' il:!-;' PARTLY ALL,OWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION (L k t6 y( ./1 ,-t /t 17, t