The High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWAEI SRIDEVI CRI MINAL PETITION Nos.2156 of 2024 &28 I ) oI 2025 DATED: 16TH DECEMBER 2025 Between T. Marreddy and another Petitioners AND The State of Telangana represented by Public Prosecutor and another Fi rspondents COMMON ORDER These Criminal Petitions i.e. Criminal Petil itn No 2156 of 2024 filed by the petitioners-accused Nos 2 and 3 and Criminal Petition No 28'1 3 of 2025 filed by the petitioner- accused No 4, seeking to quash criminal l,roceedings pending against them in C.C.No 378 of 2016 and C C No 1394 of 2023 respectively, pending on tie file of the learned Xlll Additional Chief lVletropolitan lVl; rgistrate at Hyderabad, (for short 'the learned trial Court') rr ising out of the same crime vide FIR No208 of 2016 'l-re offences alleged against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 tc 4 are under Sections 498-4 420, 406, 506, 379 read with 1 20-B of the 2 lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC') and Sections 4 & 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short the Act') 02 Since the parties, allegations, and issues involved are common, both the Crimrnal petitions are disposed of by way of this common order 03 Heard Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senror Counsel representing Sri P.Srihari, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4, Sri G.Ashok Reddy, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.2 in CRL P.No 2813 of 2025 and representing [Vls. Y.Ratna Prabha, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No 2 in CRL.P No 2'l 56 of 2024 as well as Sri [Vl.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the record 04(a). ln brief, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage of the complainant-respondent No.2/LW1 was performed with the accused No.1 on 30.12.201'1 at lmperial Garden, Secunderabad, according to Christian rites and customs. lt was an arranged marriage. The accused Nos.1 to 4 allegedly demanded '100 tolas of gold jewellery, landed 3 properties wofth Rs.15 crore, and that the rnrrriage be performed rn a grand manner. On such dem:rd of the accused Nos.1 to 4, the parents of the resporllent No 2 provided 100 tolas of gold and diamond jewe llery, and registered landed properties (i) Ac 17-00 1 untas at Sadasivpet, tr/edak District, (ii) 666 sq. yarcl ; of land opposite Hi-l-ech City Madhapur Hyderabad vnrth about Rs 15 crore, in the name of the respondent No 2 Her father incurred Rs.8 lakh on the engagement ceremony rnd further substantial expenditure for the marriage. On :l re date of marriage, the respondent No.2 also received jelu >llery from relatives and friends as gifts. At the time of m:"riage, her parents additionally gave Rs2 lakh to the ac:lsed No.4 towards "Adapaducham Katnam " 04(b). lt is further alleged that after mrlriage, the respondent No.2 stayed with the accused No 1 and his family at Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad, where she we s allegedly subjected to harassment within a few days on he ground that the dowry given was inadequate. She was compared with others and subjected to sarcastic rent, trks. On 2601 2012, the respondent No 2 and the acc-rsed No.1 'i 4 moved to the United States of America, where the accused No.4 joined them The accused No.4 allegedly instigated the accused No.'1 against the respondent No.2. The accused Nos.2 and 3 also allegedly instigated the accused No..1 over phone to demand registration of the landed properties in the name of the accused No. 1. They frequently quarrelled with the respondent No.2 over the said issue. The accused No 4 desired to marry the respondent No.2's cousin (LW6) and the accused Nos l to 4 allegedly pressured her to convince LW6. When LW6 declined the proposal, the accused Nos l to 4 allegedly bore grudge against the responflent No.2 and her family and continued to harass her, demanding further dowry and transfer of the prope(ies. The accused No.4 subsequently married another person in the United States but continued to reside with the respondent No.2 and the accused No.1, allegedly interfering in their marital life and instigating the accused No.1. The accused No.1 is alleged to have misbehaved with and ill{reated the respondent No.2 on several occasions to coerce her into meeting their demands. He allegedly used the respondent No.2 mobile 5 phone to send messages to his own phone and (l )lete them, in order to create adverse evidence against her Oa(c) lt is further alleged that in July 2013, the respondent No.2 was sent alone to Hyderabad tc eside with the accused Nos.2 and 3 for a month. During t rat period, the accused Nos.2 and 3 allegedly harassed he' to transfer the landed propertres in favour of the acc I ;ed No.'1 , misbehaved with her, and took away the origirr; rl property documents. On her return to the United States o' \merica in August 2O'1 l) rhe accused No. 1's behavroi'r allegedly deteriorated further, and he continued to harass her at the instigation of the accused Nos 2 to 4 04(d) lt is further alleged that upon her conceiving, the accused Nos l to 4 allegedly insisted her l< undergo abortion, under threat that she would othi rwise be abandoned, the respondent No.2 agreed, and her )regnancy WAS allegedly forcibly terminated on 07.01 201() in United States of America. The respondent No.2's youn( er sister's engagement was scheduled for 06.02.2016 Tilr accused No.1 brought the respondent No.2 to Hyd : abad on 6

28.01 2016 and the accused Nos '1 to 4 behaved abnormally and reiterated demands for transfer of the properties. On

08.02.2016, the accused Nos l to 3 allegedly took away all her gold and diamond jewellery on the pretext of keeping it safely in their locker. The accused No 1 also took custody of the respondent No 2's passport, Green Card, Social Security Card, California l D. card, educational certificates, and other documents, stating that he would keep them safe, and handed them over to the accused Nos.2 and 3. 04(e). lt is further alleged that in the second week of February 20'1 6, the accused Nos.1 to 3 allegedly quarrelled with the respondent No.2 over transfer of the properties and physically illtreated her. On her refusal, they threatened to divorce her and forcibly sent her to her parents' house wrth only her wearing apparel. The accused No. 1 immediately left for the United States of America without informing her. The respondent No.2 attempts to contact him were unsuccessful. The accused Nos.2 and 3 allegedly retained all her belongings including jewellery, documents, and Green Card. Only her passport was returned through T.p. Sleeva Reddy, brother-in-law of the accused No.2, after obtaining 7 acknowledgement. Despite repeated reque t ts by the respondent No 2 and her parents, the accuseci Nos.'l to 4 allegedly refused to return her Green Card :ertificates, lewellery, and other belongings. and threatened t er with dire consequences 04(f). lt is further submitted that the a<:r used No.1 allegedly continued to ignore her emails with the intention of compelling her to transfer the properlies The ac;used No 1 acting at the behest of the accused Nos 2 to ,, allegedly neglected, I'rarassed, and physrcally and rner-rr: iry toflurecl the respondent No.2 on several occasions. lte accused Nos.1 to 4 also allegedly misappropriated her locuments, gold ornaments, valuables, and land docLr rents and continued to make unlaMul demands with the ntention of usurping her property and compelling her to f; rcilitate the accused No 4's marriage with her cousin. The respondent No.2 states that she endured all harassment in t^: hope that the accused Nos 'l to 4 would mend their behar iour. but in varn Due to continuous physical and mental r ruelty, she suffered ill-health and was unable to concenlrrte on her T 8 studies. Attempts by elders and well-wishers to reconcile the couple failed. Hence, the present complaint was lodged 05(a) Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 never subjected the respondent No.2 to any form of physical or mental harassment lt is contended that the petitioners-accused Nos 2 and 3. who are the father_in_law and mother-in-law of the respondent No.2, are aged about 68 and 66 years respectively. The accused No.1 and the respondent No 2 had been residing for the major part of their marital life in the United States of America, and the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 never stayed with the respondent No.2 for any prolonged duration so as to attribute any act of cruelty or harassment to them. 05(b). lt is further submitted that the petitioner-accused No.4, who is the younger sister of the accused No. 1 and the sister-in-law of the respondent No.2, is a married woman having a minor son aged about three years and has been residing separately along with her husband in the United States of America for several years. It is further submitted 9 that the petitioner-accused No.4 has no nexus '^ hatsoever with the alleged offences, as she has be en living independently and never interfered in the matrimrt tial affairs between the respondent No.2 and the accused Nc, 1 05(c). Learned Senior Counsel further con r nded that the present criminal proceedings nothrr 3 but a counterblast to the drvorce proceedings initrale d by the accused No.1 against the respondent No2 in F C ) P No79 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judge. Far ily Couri, Secunderabad. it is pointed out that tire pi-es.: t crrnrinal case came to be instituted only after service of nc tice in the divorce proceedings, thereby clearly demonstratinl I the mala fide intent behind lodging the complaint 05(d) lt is further submitted that the respcr Cent No 2 and her father compelled the accused No.1 t I transfer amounts aggregating to Rs.1 ,36,41 ,5411- during he period from 'l 8.06.2013 to 30.01.2016 apart from an rmount of USD 30,000/- prior to '18.06.2013 Since the sair amounts were not repaid, the accused No.1 was cons rained to institute a money recovery suit in O.S.No.490 of ilr )16 on the i I i I i i I ) i 1 I t 10 file of the learned Chief Judge, City Civit Court, Hyderabad, on 08.08.2016. During the pendency of the said suit, a compromise was arrived at, vide Judgment and decree dated

12.11.2018, wherein rt is recorded that upon payment and receipt of an amount of Rs 11500,000/-, the parties shall have no further claims of any nature whatsoever against each other and that all disputes stood fully and finally settled. 05(e). lt is finally contended that a plain reading of the charge sheet does not drsclose the essential ingredients required to constitute iire offences alleged under Sections 498-4, 420, 406, 506 and 379 read with Section 12O-B of lPC, as well as Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry prohibition Act, and therefore, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners amounts to an abuse of the process of 05(f). With the above submissions, while praying to quash the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon a decision in Sanjay D. Jain and 11 others v. State of Maharashtra and othersl I herein the Honourable Supreme Court held at Paragraph I'os 9 & 10 "9. Before examining the FIR along with the contpt= nt of the complatnant, we may refer to the parame'r rs that are to be borne in mind while entertaining r e prayer for quashing of the FlR. lf the allegations ttia le in the FIR or the complaint, even when taken at lt, )ir face vafue and accepted in their entirety do not pttrt ta facie constitute any offence or make out any ce ;e against the accused, quashing of the proceed,r 1s vrould be justified. Vague and general allegat c ts cannot lead to forming of a prima facie case. 1s regards the ingredients for making out an offt r :e punishable under Section 498-A of the Penal Cor c ls concerned, the requirement $ that there has tc. te cruelty t:tflicled agatnst the victtnt which erther r' ' ": her to comnit suicide or cause grave injury to he : =tt or lead to such conduct that would cause grave tr 1 ry or danger to life, limb or health The latter paft ol rc provisiort refers to harassment with a view to sa't;fy an unlawful demand for any propefty or valtt t 'le security raised by the husband or his relatives. r/ r se aspecls have been considered in detail in a re : 'trt decision in Digambar and Another (supra) (to tt't :lt one of us, B R. Gavai, J, as he then was, w,,: a paftv)

10. A perusal of the FIR and its consideration n entirety indicates that statements of a general nat re have been made therein as against the pre; 'rtt appellants. The complainant sfafes that )n 07 08 2021 when she had gone to her partr tal house, she had received a call from her mother-in-t tw raising a demand for clothes and jewellery. When : \e returned to her matimonial house on 30.08.2021 . : he had taken few clothes for the family members. Ex: tpt this statement, all other slafemenls are of a get t ral ' zozs scc onlrne sc 2090 I I i i ! I I I I I I I .l ! ,l II j L2 nature as well as vague without any pafticulars. There are other omnibus slatemenfs ntade in the comptaint withou[ any pafticulars whatsoever. /l is a/so to be noted that for the purpose of constituting an offence punishable under Seclion 49g-A of the penat Code, cruelty as indicated in the Explanation to the saicl provision must be stated to be infticted. The cruetty caused by the husbancl and his famity members should be of such nature that it is inflicted with the intention to cause grave injury or drive the victim to commit suicide or inflict grave injury to herself. Such allegations are absent in the present case. We do not find that on a complete reading of the complaint, a prima facie case for proceeding under Section 4gB_A of the Penal Code has been made out against the appellants." 05(g). Further, he relied upon a decision in Abhishek v. Sfafe of Madhya Pradesh2 viherein the Honourabl_- Supreme Court at Paragraph No 19 that. "19. The most significant aspect to be taken note of presently is that Bhawna aclmittedly pafted ways with her matrimonial home and her in-laws in February, 2009, be it voluntarily or othenuise, but she did not choose to make a complaint against them in retation to dowry harassment tiil the year 201 3. Surprisingly, FIR No. 56 dated 09.02 2013 recorcts that the occurrence of the offence was from 02.07.2007 to 05.02.2013, but no allegations were made by Bhawna against the appellants after she left her matrimonial home in February, 2009. Significanily, Bhawna got married to Nimish on 02.07.2007 at lndore and went to Mumbai with him on 08.07.2007. Her interaction with her in-laws thereafter seems to have been only duing festivals and is stated to be about 3 or 4 times. Sourabh, an architect, was stationed at Delhi since the year 2007 and no specific attegation was ever made against him by Bhawna_ ln fact, she merely '? 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 731 : 2023 |NSC 779 / / 13 made a general allegation to the effect that he al: o toftured her mentally and physically for dowry. I o specific instance was cited by her in that regard ot i s to how he subjected her to such harassment frtn Delhi. Sinilarly, Abhishek became a judicial officer 6 or 7 nonths after her marriage and seems to hl e had no occasion to be with Bhawna and Nimish tt Mumbai. His exposure to her was only when :J e came to 'tisit her in-laws during festivals. Surprisinlt, r, Bhawna alleges that at the time of his own marriatr >, Abhishek demanded that Bhawna and her pare\ s should provide him with a car and {.2 lakhs in cas r. Why he vrould make such a demand for dowry, e,t n if he was inclined to commit such an illegality, front t s sister-in-law at the time of his own marriage is ratn :r incongru<';us and difficult to comprehend. Further, 'l e fact that Bhawna confessed to making a vicior s contplaint against Abhishek to the High Couri clet y shows that her motives were not clean insofar as ; r brother-r, t-|a,," Abhishek, is concerned and : l e cleariy wanted to wreak vengeance against her ir laws. The allegation levelled by Bhawna against ,t r mother-in-law, Kusum Lata, with regard to how :l e taunted her when she wore a maxi is wlto y insufficient to constitute cruelty in terms of Seclt n 4984 tPC " 06(a). Learned Additional Public Prosecuto' appearing for the State as well as learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.2 submitted that pursuant to th,: demands made by the accused persons the parents of the r )spondent No.2 had given substantial dowry, which includec about 100 tolas of gold, diamond jewellery, and immovable properties valued at approximately Rs.15 crores, besides incurring huge expenditure towards the engagement cer(l nony and I I I l i 14 marriage. lt is fu(her submitted that subsequent to the marriage, the accused persons subjected the respondent No.2 to continuous pressure to transfer the said landed properties in favour of the accused No 1, resulting in frequent quarrels and verbal abuse, including over telephonic conversatio ns. 06(b). lt is further contended that the accused Nos l and 4 forcibly took the respondent No.2 to a hospital in the United States of America, where her pregnancy was allegedly terminated agarnst her will It is also alleged that the gold and diamond jewellery belonging to the respondent No.2 was retained in the custody of the accused persons. Placing reliance on the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal procedure, learned counsel submitted that the charge sheet contains specific allegations against the petitioners. lt is therefore contended that the veracity of the allegations can be determined only upon appreciation of evidence during trial, and at this stage, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed and prayed to dismiss both these Criminal Petitions. 15 07 Having heard the submissions of tr: learned counsel appearing on either side and upon a carrl ul perusal of the material on record, it is apparent that tl^t marriage between the respondent No.2 and the accuse(l No 1 was solemnized on 30 12.201 l Admittedly, within le ss than a month thereafter i e on 26.01 .2012, the couple eft for the United States of America, where they resided fot the major part of their matrimonial life The petitioners-acc:t sed Nos 2 and 3 are the parents of the accused No.1, agt; I about 68 and 66 years respectively, and are residents of llyderabad' The petrtioner-accused No.4 is the married si ter of the accused No 1 and has been residing separatel'1 along with her husband in the United States of America 08 A perusal of the record reveals ti i t the First lnformation Report in the present criminal case ;ame to be registered on 28 03.2016 along with a lengthy <;r ,mplaint. lt is pertinent to note that, prior thereto i.e. on 11 l t2.2016 the accused No,1 had instituted F.C.O.P.No.79 of I 016 before the learned Judge, Family Court, Secunderatr rd, seeking dissolution of marriage with the respondent No 2 Evidently, \ t I t, l : , i t i a ! ! I I : ! I t I I i i i i { It) the present criminal proceedings were initiated only after service of notice in the divorce proceedings 09 lt is relevant to note that in the cornpiarnt itself, there is a reference to the parents of the respondent No.2 having given certain rmmovable properties, gold and diamond jewellery to her at the time of marrrage. lt rs alleged that the accused Nos.2 to 4 demanded that the respondent No.2 transfer the said landed properties in favour of the accused No.1. lt is further alleged that on 08.02 2016, the accused Nos.1 and 3 forcibly took possessron of ait ner gold and diamond ornaments, stating that the same would be kept in their locker on the pretext of threat of thefts in ttre locality. However, it is to be noted that though the respondent No 2 lodged a detailed complaint on 28.03.2016, she did not furnish any particulars whatsoever regarding the description, weight, value, or identification of the gold and diamond jewellery allegedly retained by the accused persons. Significantly, even the charge sheet filed pursuant to the investigation does not disclose any such particulars, or does it reflect that the investigating agency conducted any seizure, recovery, or papchanama in respect of the alleged jewellery. / 1,7

10. Apparently, it is evident from the recorc that there were certain financial transactions between tl-r accused No l and the father of the respondent No.2, 1> rrsuant to which the father of the respondent No.2 became i rdebted to the accused No.l Accordingly, on 08.08.2016 tlt; accused No.1 represented by his father i.e. the petitiorr r-accused No2 herein, rnstituted a civil suit in O.S.N0.490 rf 2016 on the file of the learned Chief Judge, City Ovil Court, Hyderabad, seeking recovery of an ar rount of Rs 1,20,56,5411- along with interest at the rate 24o/o per annum from tne father of the respondent No,2. Tl'e said suit came to be decreed in terms of a comprcr tise, vide Judgment and decree dated 12.11.2018, whr rein it is categorically i-ecorded that upon payment and rer, ,eipt of an amount of Rs 1,15.00,000/-, the parties shall hav: no further claims of any nature whatsoever against each ottr, rr and that all disputes stood fully and finally settled.

11. Further, it is evident that the present complaint WAS lodged subsequent to the filing of tir: divorce proceedings by the accused No.1 ln this contex',, it remains unexplained as to why the father of the respor lent No.2 I I l i i I : I i I I I 1 I i I I i I l I 18 would have paid such a substantial amount in setflement of the civil dispute if, in fact, the gold and diamond jewellery of the respondent No.2 had continued to remain in the custody of the accused persons. This unexplained omission casts serious doubt on the veracity of the allegations levelled against the accused persons. 12 A perusal of the charge sheet further discloses an allegation that one Sri T.p. Sleeva Reddy had retained the passport of the respondent No.2. However, as is evident from the compromise decree passed in the aforementioned civil suit, there is a specific acknowledgment regarding the receipt of the passport from the said Sri T.p Sleeva Reddy This circumstance clearly indicates that the parties had arrived at an amicable settlement wrth respect to several issues, including certain allegations which now form part of the present criminal proceedings.

13. As regards the ingredients necessary to constitute an offence punishable under Section 49g_A of lpC, it is well settled that the prosecution must establish ,,cruelty,, of such a nature as would either drive the woman to commit 19 suicide, or cause grave iniury, or danger to i e, limb or health The latter limb of the provision c,> rtenrplates harassment with a view to coerctng the worr ?n or her relatives to meet any unlawful demand for p roperty or valuable security made by the husband or his relerl ves 14 ln the present case, the material cn record discloses that there exrsted a civil dispute b: :ween the accused No 1 and the father of the respondent \ o 2, which ultimately culminated in a compromtse, pursua ^ to which certajn amoun.is were pard by the father of the r :spondent No.2 to the accused No.1 lt is also evident that I e accused No.1 instituted divorce proceedings against the r =spondent No.2 and that the present criminal case, r :lating to matrrmonial issues, came to be lodged only after service of notice in the said drvorce proceedrngs

15. Even if the averments contained in th: complaint are taken at their face value, the allegations attrilt rted to the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3, who are the par ;nts of the accused No'l , pertain to the year 2013 and are <onfined to an alleged demand over telephonic conversations; :o transfer I ! I :, I 20 certain propefties in the name of the accused No.1, without any specific particulars or proximate acts of cruelty

16. Insofar as the petitioner-accused No.4 is concerned, she is a married woman having a minor son and has been residing separately along with her husband, independent of the accused No l and the respondent No.2 The allegation of forced termination of pregnancy attributed to the petitioner-accused No 4 is stated to have occurred in the United States of America. Admittedly, no medical records from any competenl medical authority in the United States have been produced in support of the said allegation Further, no sanction as contemplated under Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been obtained for prosecuting offences allegedly committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of lndia

17. lnsofar as the other offences are concerned, the offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 of IPC requires the existence of a dishonest intention at the very inception. ln the present case, the marriage subsisted for several years and the allegations arise out of subsequent 7L matrimonial discord. The material on recorcl does not disclose any rnittal deception or fraudulent inducert rent so as to attract the ingredients of Section 420 of lrC The allegation of criminal conspiracy under Section 1 2l-B of IPC is purely inferential and is not supported by ar y material demonstrating a prior meeting of minds or conc:1ed action among the accused persons. As observed ht reinabove, except for a bald allegation that the accus l I persons retained the gold and diamond jewellery, tlt :re is no description, identification, or valuation of sucr jewellery Significantly, no seizure, recovery, or panchit tama WAS conducted by the investigating agency in resc=ct of the alleged properly, thereby failing to satisfy tl-r essential ingredients of criminal breach of trust under Se: ion 406 of IPC Even as per the complaint, there is no a'"r rment that any property was taken away without the corrent of the respondent No.2 so as to constitute the offerr :e of theft under Section 379 of lPC Furlher, there is ro specific assertion as to the nature of any threat allegedly : <tended by the accused persons which could have caused : arm to the l i ! l i i i 2Z respondent No,2, a sine qua non for attracting the offence of criminal intimidation under Section 506 of lpC. '1 8 The question that now arises for consideration is whether the allegations levelled in the charge sheet against the petitioners-accused Nos 2 to 4 are supported by any cogent material warranting their being put to trial, or whether the criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed by invoking the inherent powers of this Courl under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ln support of the allegations contained rn the charge sheet, the investigating agency has examineci as many as seven witnesses. Out of them, four witnesses are the respondent No.2 and her close relatives, who are admittedly interested witnesses; two witnesses are projected as independent witnesses; and one witness is the lnvestigating Officer. lt is pertinent to note that both the so_ called independent witnesses have categorically stated in their statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that they are friends of, and well acquainted with, the father of the respondent No.2. Significantly, both witnesses have stated that ,,1 came to know throuoh D tVareddy" and ,,ti/lr. '/ ti4arreddy informed me,,, 23 which clearly demonstrates that their statements are based on 'hearsay' and not on any personal or direct krt rwledge of the alleged incidents Consequently, their statent nts do not disclose any independent or direct material imprl cating the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 '1 9 lt is further relevant to note that thert e is not a single medical record or the statement of any competent medical practitroner placed on record to subsl rntiate the allegation of physical harassment by the accus(l i persons Admittecily, the respondent No.2 and the acr:rsed No.i resided for the malor part of their matrimonia life in the United States of America. Though it is alleg,: I that the respondent No.2 was subjected to mental har;;sment by way of telephonic conversations, no mobile pho": numbers have been furnished by the respondent No 2, .:r has the investigatrng agency placed on record any call de l lil records, recordings, or other material evidencing sucl^ telephonic interactio ns

20. On a careful scrutiny of the entire naterial, it appears that the present case is a classic insii rnce of an i l l 24 attempt to rope in all the family members of the accused No.1, a practice which has been consistenfly deprecated by the Honourable Supreme Court in a catena of Judgments. Whrle the scope of interference under Section 4g2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is well setfled, a plain reading of the complaint, the charge sheet, and the accompanying material reveals that the allegations, even if taken at their face value and accepted in therr entirety, do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged and, at best, constitute vague, omnibus, and generalized accusations. Therefore, permitting the continuatior.r of the criminal proceedirrgs and subjecting the petitioners_accused Nos.2 to 4 to the rigours of trial would amount to an abuse of the process of law, and the proceedings are liable to be quashed 21 . Accordingly, both these Criminal petitions are allowed and the criminal proceedings against the petitioners_ accused Nos.2 to 4 in C.C No.378 of 2O16 and C.C.No.1394 of 2023 respectively, on the file of the learned Xlll Additional Chief t\rletropolitan tVlagistrate at Hyderabad, are hereby quashed. _/ I .:..:' 25 As a sequel, pending miscellaneous aptr lications, if any, shall stand closed s.li. LBHAVANT SWAMY iss;t ;rnur REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFIGER To, DL

1. The Xlll Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hy(lr ; il'Si;,i.; House officer, WPS' ccs Police Station r.l the Public Prosecutor' State of Telansanrt a i;;;e;i" q 6'ne'CC t: Sri P Srihari, Advocate [oPUC] ; ;; A io sri c' Ashok Reddv' Advocate [oPUCl 6. Two CD CoPies at Hvderabad (OUT) rabad. rderabad High Court Buildings' HIGH COURT DATEDi16112l2O25 -t1 ,4 q o IJ- s A> s (5 * i t! r.-' i.i..' COMMON ORDER rr0tH * CRIMINAL PETITION Nos: 2156 OF 2024 & 2813 ot 2025 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITIONS f, b\