The High Court · 2025

Prosecutor. High Court, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Z. 9f ippg@ S_aini Archana, Wio Kiran Kumar, Age 35 years, Occ. Housewife R/o. H-No 2-3-114, Boyawada, Karimnagai Tdwn arid l\/andal Petition under Section 5g2 of BNss praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandurn of Grcunds of criminar petition, the High court may ,,.RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ', be pleased to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 1965 of 2022 pending on the file of the Judicial lVlagistrate of First Class -Cum- Spl Mobile (Excise) Court cum- 4th Additional Junio| C vil Judge at Karimnagar. r.A. NO:2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the [tr']emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including the appearance of the petitioners in O.C.No 1965 of 2022 pendtng on the file of the Judicial I\/agistrate of First Class -Cum- Spl Ir/obile (Excise) Court cum-4th Additional Junior Civil Judge at Karimnagar. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon heartng the arguments of Sri K JAIVALI Advocate for the Petrtioners and the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana on behalf of the Respondent No.2 and of Sri M. Ram Mohan Reddy. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.1994 of2o25 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in CC.No.1965 of 2022 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-special Mobile(Excise) Court-cum-lV Additional Junior Civil Judge at Karimnagar.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, on 28.04.2022 at 1400 hours the complainant Chippa @ Saini Archana W/o Kirarr Kuamr, i.e., the 2"a respondent herein, lodged a complaint stating that on 27.O5.2O1I her marriage was solemnized with the lst petitioner herein and at the time of marriage, as per the demand of the 1"t petitioner herein and his family members, her parents gave Rs.10 lakhs net cash, 5O tulas gold ald other house hold articles to them towards dowry and after marriage they lead happy marital life for some days ald thereafter, disputes arose between the complainant and the 1"t petitioner and his family members, who harassed her by beating and abusing and they got miscarriage of her 1"t pregnancy and also forced to ? .i': i ;r'.:#Y abort the 2'd pregnancy, but she did not heed to their words and gave birth to a male boy ald thereafter they harassed her on several occasions to bring additional dowry of Rs.10 1akhs, Rs.12 lakhs, u'hich was paid by the parents of the de-facto complainant, arrd thereafter also they continued the harassment, in respect of which panchayats were a-Iso held, but u'hen the 1st petitioner developed illegal intimacy with ar-rother \ roman, ald tried to go abroad with the said 1ad1', she lodged complaint at WPS on 12.12.2021, who called them ald conducted counseling, but there was no change in their attitude ald therefore, requested to take necessarl' action.

3. Whe n the matter is taken up for consideration on 2A.O7.2025, at request of counsel appearing on both sides, this matter was referred to mediation before the Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee to record the voluntary statements on the aspect of terms agreed between both the parties in MC.No.692l of 2024 on the Iiie of the V Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengalunr. *'<: -!!!'!;, ':..:..l ./ -- 3

4. A report, dt.02.O8.2025, has been submitted by the SecretarSr, High Court Legal Services Committee for the State of Telalgana, wherein it is stated that both petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2/defacto complainant as rn ell as their respective counsel have appeared before the said Committee in compliance with the order passed by this Court on 28.07.2025, ald the said authority verified their particulars. Petitioner Nos.2 to T have not appeared before the said Committee.

5. By the said report it is also stated that instead of MC.No.692 I of 2024, MC.No.4921 of 2024 was typed ald upon enquiry, tir.e wife /2"d respondent stated that she is ready to close the case fiied under Section 498A,506 of IpC and Section 4 of DP Act uide CC.No.t96Sl2O22, which is pending before the Sp1. Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Karimnagar, but insists the 1.r petitioner to close the Guardiarr and Wards case No.21B 12023, pending before the V Addl. Family Court, Bengaluru, which stands posted to 08,08.2025, whereas the husbard insists the wife/2"a respondent to close the case in CC.No.36412024, which is \ ' *,. ., -.:i \. \ . . .-_.: "-'" 'tt-t:-' 4 - pending before the Prl. Judicial Magistrate or First Class, Godavarikhani, which stands posted to 22.Oa.2025.

6. By the said report it is further stated that though the wife agreed to withdrau' the said case on 22.08 -2025, the husband/ 1st petitioner is insisting to close the said CC.No.364/2O24 on the said date itself i.e, O2.O8.2O25, which is not possible, since the above cases .ire posted on

08.08.2025, 1 1.08.2025 and 22.O8.2025 respectively. 7 . WherL the matter is taken up today, botl-r the counsel submitted the counter conditions. The counsel for petitioners would submit that once the defacto complainant withdrew the cases fiied against the petitioners as per the terms placed before the learned Trial Court i.e., V Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru in MC.No.692l of 2024, the petil.ioners n'ould withdrau. the cases against the 2na respondetrt lnerein uide G&WC No.2lB/2023 and uise-uersa the unofficiat respondent would seek to withdraw the case filed against the petitioners on the 1st petitioner withdrau'rng the case filed against her. 'a irl' 5

8. Both the parties have not agreed to the suggestions made by this Court to put quietus to the disputes between them and to file an aflidavit with undertaking before this Court to withdraw the cases, firstly, by the husbancl against the wife and seconclly by the wife against the husband.

9. Accordingly, the matter is tal<en up for consideration on merits.

10. Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that the 2"d respondent/ defacto complainant having agreed before the trial Court in MC.No.692 I of 2024 to the terms of Memoraldum of Settlement filed under Section 89 r/w Rules 24 & 25 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005, arrd recording the statements made thereunder, the learned trial Court was pleased to dissolve the marriage solemnized between the 1"t petitioner and the unofflcial respondent No.2 on 27.O5.2OI1 uide its order, dt.19.1 L.2024 in terms of the settlement entered between the parties to the said case, the 2"a respondent ought to have withdrawn the cases hled by her, and upon the 2"d 6 !-\ 'r-r'd-.i. \,, - :::;ti:a:i ?:: \ , -...,' -, respondent v'ithdrawing the said cases, the 1st petitioner sha,ll in turn withdraw the cases filed against the 2"d respondent..

11. Learned counsel for the 2"d respondent uis a-uis makes the same said submission that unless and until the 1st petitioner/husbard withdraw the cases filed against the 2.d respotrdent, she cannot withdraw the cases filed against tht Petitioners.

12. Sinct:, the case uide CC'No.1965 ol 2022' flled against the petitkrners is pending on the file of the Judicial magtstrate of First Class-cum-Special Mobile(Excise) Court-currr-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge at Karimnagar and trial in the said case is under progress, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the proceedings before the trial Court, where the trial Court can alone decide the matter on merits r-rpon conducting trial and hearing the parties.

13. Insofar as the contention of the petitioners as regards the settlement arrived at between the parties in MC.No.6921 of 2024 on the frle of the V Additional 7 . Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, 1S concerned, this Court does not have any jurisdiction to express any opinion as the said matter is seized of by the learned trial Court, which is within the jurisdiction of the State of Karnataka

14. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the Criminal Petition is devoid of merit ald it is accordingly, dismissed.

15. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/- C.DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, copy to sri B. Aravind Reddy,Advocate to sri Jamati,Advocate |#..ffi One CC Copies to Sri M.Ram Mohan Reddy,Advocate. Two CC Copies to the public prosecutor, High Court of Telangana Two CD Copies one cc copv to the Judiciar Magistrate of First crass cum-rvth Additionar Junior Civil Judge at Karimnagar. 2 J 4 4 ?f. EPR/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:1 110812025 :), 2 [ SEP 2025 { ::' ,.) '4. ORDER CRLP.No.1994 of 2025 DISMTSSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION +( c. r)