Criminal Petition No. 7727 of 2025 · The High Court · 2025

in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner/ Accused No.2 in CC.No.10637l2024 pending on the file of the XIII AddI. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in the interest of iustice. I.A. NO: 7 OF 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, including the appearance of the Petitioner/Accused No.2 in CC.No.10637/2024 pending on the file of the XllI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. I.A. NO: 3 OF 2025 Between: Smt. Thandra Roja Rani, W/o. Pradeep Kumar, Aged 31 /ears, Occ Ilousewifc, R/o. H.No.1B-6-i80, Near Mitra CIub, Kummarwadi, Go vlipura, Hyderabad. ...I'< titioner/ Respondent No.2. And

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecut rr, High Court at Hyderabacl. . Respondent/ Responden t. 2. Tandra Prashanth Kumar, S/o T. Constable, R/o I .No.9-47 / 79,Flat No 302, Sai Harsha Towers, Gayathri Nagar, Karmanghat, {yderabad ..Responclents Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that j .r the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitior. the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim stay order dated 07.02.2 )25 passed in I.A. No.l of 2025 in CRI-.P. No.1727 of 2025, thereby permitting cott inuation of proceedings in C.C. No.10637 of 2024 on the file of the XIII Addl. Chie Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. This Petition corning on for hearing, uPon peru;ing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing tL < arguments of Sri Mohd Muzaffer Ullah Khan, Advocate for the Petitioner ar< the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.l and of Sri K.Poth t Raju, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.1727 ol2025 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.2 seeking quash the proceedings in CC No. 10637 of 2024 on the file of Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, for the offences under Sections 498(4) and 504 IPC

2. Heard Mr.tVohd. Muzafferullah Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.'1-State and Sri K. Pothu Raju, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is accused No.2 and is a Police Constable and he is no way connected with the allegations leveled against him. He is the brother of accused No.1 and that there are no specific allegations of harassment against the petitioner herein- He never resided with the accused No.'1 and lhe de facto complainant and that he never harassed the de facfo complainant or never interfered with their family life. He therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner r .- 2 ETD,) ctl-P. No.1727 0l 2025

4. Learned counsel for the respondent Nc 2 has submitted that the petitioner has actively participated in tlt performance of marriage of the de facto complainant with accus€r( No.1 and that a dowry of Rs.15.00 lakhs was paid along with 6 .rlas of gold and that the petitioner herein has instigated the husbzu d of the de facto complainant to harass her and therefore, pray': I to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record

6. The contents of the complaint disclos : no allegations against the petitioner herein. The recitals of thr: charge sheet do not point out any specific averments against th(l petitioner herein. The only line of averment made in the charge shr: rt is that accused No.'l was influenced by accused Nos.2 to 4 i nd neglected to provide food to the de facto complainant. But for I at, no allegations are pointing out against the petitioner. ln Dara La kshmi Narayana & Others v. State of Telangana', it was held b1' .he Hon'ble Apex Court that if there are omnibus allegations age nst the accused and no specific incidents of harassment ar: made out, the ' zozl {rusc ss: -r- 3 ETD,J Ctl-P. No.172't ol2o2s proceedings need to be quashed. It was held by the Apex Court that: "25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. lt is a well_ recognrzed fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalized and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or part;cularized allegations cannot form the basis for crimrnal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment cf innocent family members. ln the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, v,/ho are the members of the family of appellant No.1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them."

7. ln the light of the above said decision and in view of the above held discussion, the continuance of proceedings against the petitioner herein would be abuse of process of law and hence, the same are liable to be quashed. 4 EfD,J C .P. No 1727 ol2075 - B. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowerl quashing the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.2 in C( No.10637 of 2024 on the file of Xlll Additional Chief Metropolita r fi/agistrate, Hyderabad [\Iiscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall st rnd closed SD/- P.CIt NAGABHUSHAMBA I,EPUTY REGISTRAR / /TRUECOPY/ / SECTION OFFICER To, ^I The XIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyder;r ,ad. The Station House Officer, Chatrinaka Police Stalion, t yderabad. One CC to Sri Mohd Muzaffer Ullah Khan, Advocate ( )PUC] One CC to Sri K.Pothu Raju, Advocare IOPUC] One CC to the Public Prosecutor, High Court Building,; I{yderabad. [OPUC] Two CD Copies. 2 J 4 5 6 liCK/PSLw - HIGH COURT DATED:71/1.1/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.1727 ot2025 Aliowing the Criminal Petition - J'Y "' /.. :^ ;ia\L :'- ;" \ /_. Oa ] B JIN 2I'B I .l==2, 2< C) .\ I