The High Court · 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 Call for the Records and examine the same by quashing the proceedings in CC No 248 of 2024 On the file of Special Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) for Trial of Cases under PCR Act- Cum-lV Additional Junior Crvil Judge, Khammam, in Connection with F.l.R.No.75 ot 2024 dl.,28-06-2024 of of Women Police Station, Khammam, UiSec., 498-4, 506 lP.C and U/Sec, 4 of DPA against the PetitioneriAccused herein. l.A. NO: 2 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 grant Stay of all further proceedings in CC No. 248 of 2024 On lhe flle Honble Special Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) for Trial of Cases under PCR Act- Cum-lV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Khammam, in Connection with F I.R.No.75 of 2024 dt., 28-06-2024 of of Women Police Station, Khammam, U/Sec., 498-A, 506 LP.C and U/Sec, 4 of DPA., including appearance of the Petitioner/Accused in the said case. This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing ti e Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argun r nts of Sri NOOTY VASISHTA VENKATESWARLU ,Advocate for the Petitioner rnd Mr V.Jithender Rao Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Responc ant No1. and none appear for the Respondent No2. The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.1874 OF 2025 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner - accused seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No 248 of 2024 on the file of the learned Special l/lagistrate of I Class (Mobile) for Trial of Cases under PCR Act - cum - lV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Khammam, registered for the offences under Sections 498-4 and 506 of the lndian Penal Code (for short "lPC") and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, '1961 (for short "DP Act").

2. Heard the submissions of Sri Nooty Vasishta Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learnecj Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State 3 The learned petitioner counsel has submitted that the petitioner is the husband of the de facto complainant and that having vexed with the attitude of the de facfo complainant, the petitioner herein has filed a divorce OP, subsequent to which, the present complaint is filed as an afterthought just to harass the petitioner. He further submitted that if really the petitioner has harassed the de faclo complainant, she should have lodged the 2 complaint much earlier but not as a counter blast. llence, there is \ no truth in the allegations leveled by the de fact; complainant, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against I e petitioner 4 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor har; submitted that the complaint and also the statement of witnes r es reveal the allegations against the petitioner and hence, he pr: yed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record

6. The learned petitioner counsel relied upon thr: decision of the Apex Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana y. Stafe of 'elanganal . ln Dara Lakshmi Narayana's case (supra), the respc r dent No.2/wife used to leave the rnatrimonial home uninformed a. i on one such occasion when she left the matrimonial house, the lr sband made a police complaint and when the police found her w I -.reabouts. she was allegedly living with someone and that afier b,: ng counselled, she returned to her matrimonial home. lt was furthel submitted that the wife addressed a letter to the Deputy Superinte r dent of police, Thirupathur Sub-Division requesting to close the corr plaint made by appellant No.'l wherein she admitted that shr: had left her '(2025) 3 scc 735 3 matrimonial house after quarrelling with appellant No.1 because of one Govindan, with whom she was talking over the phone for the past ten days continuously and that she would not repeat such acts in future. lt was further submitted that respondent No.2 again left the matrimonial house leaving appellant No.1 and children behind. Then the husband having no other option has issued a legal notice seeking divorce by mutual consent Thus, as a counter blast the present FIR was filed by respondent No.2/wife. Further, in the said case, there were no specific allegations against the appellants and the respondent No.2 left her matrimonial home on her own. ln that backdrop, the Apex Court has held that when there are no specific allegations against the appellants the proceedingS need to be quashed. Thus, the appeal was allowed and the impugned order of the High Court was set aside and as a result, the proceedings before the trial Court were quashed. Thus the facts of the present case differ from the above cited decision and hence is not applicable.

7. The petitioner herein is the husband of the de facto complainant. A perusal of the complaint and also the statement of LW'1 points out the specific allegations agalnst the petitioner herein I that he used to harass the de facto complainant with a demand for { dowry and also that he used to beat her and he nr r ked her out of the house. The statement of the panchayath elder llso points out the sard allegations B C C.No.24B of 2024 on the file of the Ie arned Special l\4agistrate of I Class (Mobile) for Trial of Cases ul ler PCR Act - cum - lV Addrtional Junior Civil Judge, Khammanr is pending for trial The truth or otherwise of the allegations shal te brought out during the course of trial. Hence, it is not proper t I interJere with the judicial process at this stage. 9 In the result, the Criminal Petition is disposer, of dispensing with the attendance of the petitioner before the tria Court, unless his presence is specifically required by the trral O rurt during the course of trial, provided that he shall be represente: by his counsel on every date of hearing Miscellaneous applications pending, if an,, shall stand closed SD/.A.S I,EENIVASA REDDY ASSI ;TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The Special Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) f :'Trial of Cases under'PCR Act--Cum-lV Additional Junior Civil J ldge, Khammam, The Station House Officer, Women Police Station, I hammam, 2 'ro ? ratf.? ! I

3. One CC to SRL NOOTY VASISHTA VENKATESWARLU Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CC to SRl. PUBLTC PROSECUTOR Advocate [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies CIL AG/PSL \ HIGH COURT DATED:03109t2025 \ ORDER CRLP.No.1874 of 2025 { f ( XE :--, c, O -!- * I , 't rES JAI'I 2 0?0 j, * ,ATC;H CRLP IS DISPOSED OF o$*'