The High Court · 2025

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 quash the Charge Sheet in CC No 511612022 on the file of the Court of the Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally at Hyderabad. l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the common order of interim stay in Crl P No 1561 of 2023 dated 25109/2024 until further orders. l.A. NO: 1OF 2024 Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim order dt.04/01/2024 passed in Crl.P.No.'1 561 of 2023 of this Hon'ble Court l.A. NO: 2OF 2023 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P C praying that in the circumstances stated rn the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in CC No 511612022 on the file of the Court of the Xlll Additional Chief f\iletropolitan [\4agistrate, Hyderabad. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the ltlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argun,ents of Sri lmmaneni Rama Rao. Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri E.Ganesh, Asst. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri R.Rama Brahamma, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER ,/ l THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.1561 OF 2o23 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is hled under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, i973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.J to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/ accused No.3 in C.C.No. 5116 of 2022, on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hydcrabad at Nampally, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-4 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 196I.

2. The brief facts of the case are that accused No.l married respondent No.2 on 23.10.2013 and'iead their marital life happity for some period. Thereafter, accused No. I along with the other accused used to harass her physically, mentally and used to threaten her with dire consequences for want of additional dowry. Hence, respondent No.2 filed a complaint in Crime No.963 ot 2O2l before the WPS CCS DD Police, Hyderabad and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed vide C.C.No.S1 16 of 2022 before the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

3. Heard Sri Rama Rao Maneni, learned counsel for the petitionq and Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public \ Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1 - State as well as , 2 EryJ crlP.No. ts6l of 2023 Sri R. Rama Brahmamma, learned counsel representing fcir respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner l-rerein is living separately from accuscd No.l and respondenl No.2. He further submitted that the pctitioner is no way concerned with the alleged offences. Hence, he prayed the Court to allorv the Criminal Petition by quashing thc proceedings against the petitioner.

5. On 1"1-re other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1-State opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that as per the averments of the complaint, petitionerJaccusecl No.3 along rvith accused No. I used to harass respondent No.2. Henr:e, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

6. Lcarncd counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that the petitioncr supportcd accused No.1 in harassing respondent No.2 for demanding additional dowry. He further slrbmitted that since the charge sheet was hled after completion of the investigation, a detailed trial has to be conductccl in order to elicit the truc facts of the case. Hence, he prayecl the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 3 EW,J CrLP.No. t561 oJ 2023

7. In view of the rival submissions made by both the counsel, this Court has perused the material available on record. As per the averments of the complaint, petitioner/ accused No.3 along with accused No.l harassed respondent No.2 for want of additional dowry. It is pertinent to note that except the above allegation, there are no specific allegations against the petitioner and she is no way concerned with the matrimonial disputes between accused No.1 and respondent No.2. Admittedly, the only allegation against the petitioner/ accused No.3 is that she supported accused No. 1.

8. At this stage, it is relevant to note the observations made by the Apex Court in Stcte of Haiyana and others vs. Bhajo.nlr:lt, whereunder the following categories were illustrated, wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr .P.C. can be exercised by the High Court to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends ofjustice. The said categories are extracted as under: "1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, euen if they are taken at tlteir face ualue ond accepted in their entiretA d.o not primo facie constitute any offence or make out a ca,se against the accused. * 2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if ang, accompanging the FIR do not disclose a t1992 supp (1) scc 335 4 EW,J crl.P.No.1s61 of 2023 t:E { .d cogni.z,able offence, justifuing an inuestigation by pol[ce officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of o Magistrate uithin the puruiew of Section. 155 (2) of the Code.

3. Where the urrcontrouerted allegations ntade in ttrc FIR or complaint and the eui.dence colLected in supporl of the some do not disclose the cornmission of ony offence and make out a case against the accused.

4. Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute onlg a non cognizable offence, no inuesligatiott is pemtitted by a police o1.fi"cer utithout an order of a Magistrate o.s contempiat-ed under Section 155 (2) of the Code.

5. Where the ctLlegations mad.e [n the FIR or complaint are so cLbsurd and inherentQy improbable on the basls of which no prudent person ccln eucr reach a just conclusion that tlrcra is suffictent ground for proceeding ogainst the acansed.

6. Where there is an express legal bar engra-fted in any of the prouisions of .the Code or the concented Act (under which a crtminal proceed.ing is ittstituted) to the irlstitution and- continuance of the proceedings and/ or wh"ere tfLere is a speciJic prouision in the Cocie or the concerned. Act, prouidirtg efftcacious redress for the gieuanc<: oJ' the aggieued pat4y. 7. Where a ciminal proceeding is mamfest[g attencied with mala Jide and/ or uhere the proceeding is maltciouslg instttuted u.tith an ulteior motiue for u.treaking uengeance on the accused ancl with a uieu to spite him due to piuate and personal gntdge."

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Cour:t in the casc of Geeta Mehrotra u. Slto;te o:f Uttdr Pradesh2 at paragraph No.21 held as under: ' lzot z1 to scc 741 5 EW,J CiLP.No.1561 ol 2023 "21.1t would be releuont at thb stage to take note of an apt obseruation of this Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao us. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in (2OO0) 3 SCC 693 utherein also in a matrimonial di-spute, this Court had held that the High Court should haue quashed the complatnt aising out of a matrimonial dispute u.therein all family members had been roped into the matrimoniol litigatton tuhich tuas quashed and set aside. Their Lordships obserued therein with uthich ue entirely ogree that:

12.... There has been an outburst of matimonial dispute in - recent times. Marrioge is <t socred ceremonV, mait purpose of uhich ts to enable the young couple to settle down in l{e and liue peacefullg. But ltttte matimonial skirmishes suddenly erupl which ofien assume serious proporTions resulting in heinous cimes itt which elders of the familA are also inuoLued txith the result thctt those uho could haue counselleci and rapprochement are rendered helpLess on lheir being arraged as accased in the criminal cese. Th.ere are riang reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial lttigation so that the parties mag ponder ouer tlrcir deJauLls and tenntnqte the dtsputes arntcablg bg mutual agreement instead of fghting it out in a court of law uhere it takes gears and Aears to conclude and in that process the porties lose their "goung" days in chasing their cases in different courts." brought

10. Further, in Preeti Gupta vs. State oJ Jharkho,n&, Kahkashan Ko:usor @ Sonam and Others Vs, State o.f Bihor and Otherf and Dara Lakshmi Naragana and others v. State of Telangana dnd a,ntohers, the Apex Court observed that the family members who are residing away from accused No. 1 cannot be roped into the case. In view thereof, as the \ '(zoto) z scc eoz a 2022 LawSuiL (SC) 149 s 2024 l-aw Suit (SC) I 108 6 EWJ crLP.No.1s61 of 2023 -'t .a ,! petitioner is not residing along with the family ol- accused No. 1, the allegations against her are vague. Hence, it can be said that category No.l as cxtracted above in the casr: of Bhajanlal (Supra) is relevant to the present case. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that even if the trial is conducted, no purpose would be served as there are no other specific allcgations againsl the petirioners. 1 I . Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allon,cd and the proceedings against thc petitioner/ accused No.3 in C.C.No.51 16 of 2022, on the file of XIII Additional Chiet Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad at Nampally, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous applications, if iny pendir-rg, shall also stand closed. SD/- AHMED ABDULLAH KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /TTRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER The Prl. Family Court, at Secunderabad The xlll Additional chief Mekopolitan Magistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad The Station House Officer, WPS CCS, DD, Hyderabad One CC to Sri. Maneni Rama Rao' Advocate [OPUCI One CC to Sri. R Rama Brahamma, Advocate [OPUC]' Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High court for the state of Telangana' [ouT] Two CD CoPies YIR/gh ?uq. To,

2. J 4 E 6 7 HIGH COURT DATED:1610412025 ORDER CRLP.No.1561 ot 2023 ,/zy',^g / a.- ,,',: /,: trlt 2 \ '\ r,E S14 j( 9 JUL zffi : t .,r I I I l i I P'{q, q\4,5 CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED.