High Court · 2025

PetitionunderSection4B2ofCr.P.Cprayingthatinthecircumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may-be pLased to euash the proceedings against the P-etitioners/Accused No.1 and 2 in bC.ruo.tOOoZZ9 of 2015 on tne tite of the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, in the interest of justice' l.A. NO: 2 OF 2022 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances statedintheMemoraldumofGroundsofCriminalPetition,theHighCourtmaybe to stay all further proceedings--h-cluding appearance -of the ;i;;"4 ijetitioners/Accus.d No.1 and 2 in CC.No.1600279 of 2015 on the file of the XV ealitionaf Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition. ThisPetitioncomingonforhearing'uponperusingtheMemorandumof Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M A K MUKHEED, Advocate for the Petitioner and smt. s.Madhavi, the Assistant Public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2l The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.1063 of 2022 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 ot Cr.P.C. by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedirigs against them in C.C.No.1600279 oi 2015 on the file of the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, pertaining to Crime No.4'l of 2015 of W.P.S. South Zone, registered for the offences undei' Sections 498-4, 420,406, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'lPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 1961 (for sfiort'the Act').

2. Heard Mr. lt/.A.K.Mukheed, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State Notice sent to respondent No.2-de faclo complainant was returned with an endorsement 'unclaimed'. Unclaimed notice is deemed to be proper service of notice. Inspite of the same, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2. Perused the record.

3. The petitioner-accused No.2 is the husband of de facto complainant and the petitioner-accused No.1 is the mother of petitioner- accused No.2. The gist of the complaint is that the marriage of the 2nd respondent-de facfo complainant was performed with petitioner-accused No.2 on 11.04.2014 At the time of marriage, certain amount of dowry 2 was given. Thereafter, few days after the marriage, on the instigation of the petitioner-accused No.1 , the petitioner-accused No.2 started harassing lhe de facto comprainant demanding additionar dowry. on 08.09.2014, the petitioner-accused No.2 left to Canada, leaving de facto complainant in rndia. The petitioner-accused No.2 used to mentally harass her over phone. After the birth of baby boy, when she called petitioner-accused No.2 to inform the same, he told that he married one Roya Mirza, who is the nationar of Afghanistan, asked herro divorce him and to give them custody of the child. Thereafter, she left the matrimonial home and lodged the present complaint.

4. lt is contended by the rearned counser for petitioners that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the case by the de facfo complainant, only to wreck vengeance in view of the matrimonial disputes between the de facto complainant and petitioner- accused No.2. lt is contended that the allegations are of the year 2014, however, the present complaint was filed in 2O1S i.e., there is delay in lodging the complaint. lf there was really harassment from the date of marriage, the de facfo complainant should have complained much earlier. The reason for such delay also remained unexplained. lt is further contended that the marriage between the de facfo complainant and petitioner-accused No.2 was already dissolved by way of divorce. lt is also contended that except bald allegations, no specific overt acts are ---------- -) 3 attributed to them and the ingredients of the offences alleged against themarenotmadeout.Thus,heprayedtoquashtheproceedings against the Petitioners.

5.onthe.otherhand,thelearnedAssistantPublicProsecutor contendedthatthepetitionershereinhaveharassedlhedefacto complainantfromthedateofhermarriagewithpetitioner-accusedNo.2 andbeingunabletobeartheSame,thepresentcomplainthasbeen lodged.ltisfurthercontendedthatalltheallegationslevelledinthe complaint as well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of trial, and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, she prayed to dismiss the petition'

6. ln the judgment of State of Haryana and others v' CH'Bhaian Lal and othersl , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows' The fotlowing categories of cases can be stated by way of ittustration wherein the extraorclinary power under Aiicle 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr P.C can be exercised Oy ine Uign Couft either to.prevent abuse of the process of any Courl or otherwise to secure the ends of iltstice' 'though it may not be possrb/e to tay down any precise, clearly detiied bnd sufficientty channelised and inflexible guidelirres or igid formulae and to give an exhaustive tist of myriad ki.tds of cises tryherein such power should be exercised: (1) Where the attegations made in the First lnformation 'Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face vaiue and accepted in their entirety do not Prima facie -offence or make out a case against the constitute any accused; ' 1992 scc (cri) 426 4 a (2) Where the allegations- tn Fitst lntormalion Reporl and omer materials, if any, accomoanvtnn th^ t_ t ^ , -the -_cognizable offence, it ,':""''ttv tttv r't.t< do nol disclose an investisation bv potice orricelrs undir i"""i;; ii"::'!!'|, orde.r or a uZg,Jiii;;,,iii!:l ::.:!: cod^e except inder an t trrc purwew of Section 155(2) of the vooe; (3) Where the uncontrovefte-!,,allegations made in the FIR or :Zfi::;::',#""2::;i"Zi^:'!2ctioiis'piii"oi'rni"'""u."do on ol any offence and make out a case against the accused; t (4) Where, the alleqation: cognizable otfence but oience.no.iiiiitii,tii'i,?:,il:,i::rr";!r;":";r,::f l,,,"ry; tr;::{.3:;1 Masistrate as contemptaieJ liiii i"i"fi,^r sqzt do not constitute a t"^l: ,:!? FtR . l (5) Where the alleqations .u1".i! the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inheren v imnt p,ua",tie,"ii';;;":,;i:i;:';'f ,""JLi,"f,ii! j,?[,yi,r::*,E suntc.nt ground for proceeding agiir"t tiiZ";i"Li,,", ",, , (!)^*,!.:* there 6 an exptess legal bar engrafled in any ot the provtstons of the Code or "!y2dp,"i:,"0ii"","-,'ri?,,f ,'!i''i:oi:,,Hi,,.:,,y:":r1 conttnuance of lhe proceedtnt pyyisi9ni,in""6Z"i"""'"':.":i;";#li;Z!";2,::"r::;:,,:; efircacious redress tor the grievance *,n, iiiriirio d",iij (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestty aftended with fr::;,,!:;;;{:;li!"ii:,,1:.,,,-:uoi,i'ii"i,,ii"i"L"ty on the accused-;r;';;;'r':"''ve ror wreakins vencreance ,ra p"r"o,iit-iriii"nttt a lt€w to spite him due to-private

7. ln the present case, admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to the marriage between the de facto complainant and petitioner_accusgd No 2' rt is arso an admitted fact that both petitioner-accused No.2 and the de facto complainant got dissolved their marriage by way of divorce vide order, dated 04.10.20.17 in O.p.No. 135 of 2017. Aperusal of the record would indicate that no substantial and specific allegations have been made against the petitioners herein, other than stating that they 5 harassed the de facto complainant by demanding additional dowry. Though the allegations are of the year 2014, the present complaint was lodged in the year 2015. The reason for delay in lodging the complaint remained unexplained

8. On a careful perusal of contents of the entire charge sheet, it is evident that there are no descriptive particulars as to in what manner the de facto complainant was subjected to cruelty. The charge sheet further discloses that the names of accused Nos.3 to 5, who are the family members of accused No.1 , were deleted as their involvement is not proved. There is no dishonest or fraudulent intention on the part of petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 and there are no specific allegations against them as to in what manner they threatened the de facto complainant causing criminal intimidation. As seen from the entire allegations made in the charge sheet, the offence of criminal breach of trust and intentional insult that provokes a breach of the peace, do not attract.

9. lt is to be noted that while conducting investigation, the police have t I examined six witnesses. Out of which, three are family members, who are interested witnesses. one witness is the lnvestigation officer. The t l other tvvo witnesses are shown as independent witnesses on a glance of contents of charge sheet, all the ailegations are revolving around the marriage contacted by the petitioner-accused No.2 with one Roya Mirza. a 6 To prove the same, no oral or documentary proof was put forth in the charge sheet. Surprisingly, the Police did not opt to examine the said Roya Mirza either physically or virtually, who is allegedly shown as a national of Afghanistan. ln the absence of the statement of the said Roya l/irza, the complexity of petitioners cannot be substantiated

10. ln view of the aforesaid discussion and as the present case on hand falls within the ambit of parameters (1) and (7) of Bhaian a/s case (supra), the petitioners cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them. Hence, the proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed.

11. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos. l and 2 in C.C.No.1600279 ot 2015 on the file of the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad Pending miscellaneous aPP lications, if aqt€hc{gaE slascd- //TRUE COPY// Sd/. N. SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFTCER 1 To,

1. |) 2 4 4 TheXVAdditionalChiefMetropolitanMagistrate^atHyderabad, The Station House officer, p"ii" dLtit''" WPS South Zone' Hyderabad' Two CCs to the PUBLIG PRd;;cLiioC' uign court at Hyderabad (oUT) o;; ;41;-sRl M A K MUKHEED Advocate [oPUC] Two CD CoPies -l I \ HIGH COURT DATED:2410312025 --: \ llc .; 14 ,( r :r 1 , 01 ,;rr 2925 z ,- ,rlBc0 t ORDER CRLP.No.1063 of 2022 CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED t

2.o \