The High Court · 2025

This Petition :oming on for hearing,upon perusing the Me morandum of Grounds of Crimrnal Petition and upon hearing the arguments :f S;ri Mohd Moin Ahmed Quadri. Advo:ate for the Petitioners and of M/s Mohd Asrraf Ali, Advocate for Respondent No 2 and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 3. CRL.P.NO: 2295 OF '.2025 Between: '1. Mohd. Abdul tVuqtadir Siddiqui, S/o. Mohd. Abdul Raoof Siddiqui aged about 45 years, Occ.Govt. Employee, R/o. H.No.9-3-58/B/2/83, Moti Darwaza. MD Lines, Tolichor,rr ki Hyderabad 2. Dr. Nazia Nousheen Siddiqua, Wo.Syed Aijaz Hussain aged al)out 44 years, Occ.Medical rractitioner, Ryo.H.No.16-2-64A12111503. Judges Colony, Ivlalakpet, Hyde rabad. ...PETITIONER/A.3CUSED 3&4 AND '1. The State of Telangana,, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

2. Munawar Begum. Wo.Mohd. Abdul Baseer Siddiqua aged arout 42 years. Occ.Housewife Rio.H.No. 16-2-836/1, Flat No.301, Comfort Resiriency, Press Colony, Saidab,rd. Hyderabad. ... RESPONDET/CCIMPLAINANT ...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COIlIPLAINANTS / 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 call for the records relating to and in connection with C.C.No.95012025 on the file of the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Manoranjan Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad. and quash the same against the petitioners herein. l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Crimrnal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings lncluding appearance of the petitioners in C.C.No.950/2025 on the file of the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Manoranjan Complex, Nampally. Hyderabad. pending disposal of quash petition. l.A. NO: 3 OF 2025 Between Munawar Begum, Wo.Mohd. Abdul Baseer Siddiqui aged about 42 years, Occ.Housewife R/o.H. No.16-2-836/1 , Flat No.301 Comfort Residency, Press Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad. ... PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT AND

1. Mohd. Abdul fvluqtadir Siddiqui. Sio lVlohd Abdul Raoof Siddiqui aged about 45 years, Occ.Govt. Employee, R/o. H. No.9-3-58/B/2/83, Moti Darwaza, MD Lines, Tolichowki, Hyderabad

2. Dr. Nazia Nousheen Siddiqua, Wo.Syed Aijaz Hussain aged about 44 yearc, Occ.Medical Practitioner, R/oH.No.16-2-64812111503, Judges Colony, Malakpet' Hyderabad ...RESpoNDENT/AccusED No.3&4 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 vacate the stay order dated 18.02.2025 passed in ia.no.2/2025 in Crl.p.no.2295 ot 2025. CRL.P.NO:2315OF 2025 Between: Durdana Amir, Wo.late Mohd. Abdul Raoof Siddiqui aged about 74 yea.S, Occ.Retd. Employee, R/o. H.No.9-3-58/B/2i83, Moti Darwaza, MD Lines, Tolichowki, Hyderabad ...'ET'r.NER/ACCUSED No.2 AND

1. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hvderabad . .. RES'.NDENT/..M,LA'NANT 2 Munawar Beltum. Wo.Mohd. Abdul Baseer Siddiqui aged about 42 years. Occ.Housewiie RJo.H.No.16-2-836/1, FIat No.301, Comforl R{-.sidency, Press Colony, Said:rbad, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ) 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 tre records relating to and in connection with C C.No.950/2025 on the file of the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magrstraie, at Manoranjan Complex, Nampal\,, Hyderabad, and quash the same against the petitioner herein. l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 Petition und€,r Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated an the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the .iigh Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including appearance ,:f t re petitioner in C.C.No.95012025 on tne file of the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Manoranjan Complex. Nampally, Hyderabad, pending disposal of quash petitron, The Court mirde the following: COMMON ORDER 7 t THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.2261 2295 & 2315 0F 2025 COMMON ORDER: These Criminal Petitions are filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.950 of 2025 on the file of the learned XV Additional Chief [\4etropolitan [/agistrate, Manoranjan Complex, Nampally, registered for the offences under Sections 85, 351(2) of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS') and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act

2. Heard the submissions of Sri ti/ohd. Moin Ahmed Quadri, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri lVlohd Ashraf Ali, learned counsel for the respondent No.2

3. The learned petitioner counsel has submitted that the allegations of the de-facto complainant are only against her husband and that there are no allegations against the petrtioners herein and that the petitioners are distant relatives of the husband of de-facto complainant, and they never resided with them, nor did I they intedere with the marital life of the de-facto complainant and her husband. There are serious disputes between the de-facto .complainant and her husband, but for that reason, the petitioners r--\, 1 cannot be roped in to criminal cases and therefore, prayed to quash the proceedin qs against the petitioners. I 4 The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the petitionerr; herein are accused Nos.5 and 6 anc there are specific allegzrtions made by lhe de-facto complainant that they harassed the ,le-facto complainant saying that they would perform second marriage of accused No.'l by leaving th,: de-facto complainant

5. Perused the record.

6. ln Crimiral Petition No.2295 of 2025, the petitoners are accused Nos.3 and accused No.4. Accused No.3 is brother-in-law of de-facto cornplainant and accused No.4 is sister-in-law of de- facto complainant. The only allegation against the petiticrner No.2- accused No.4 ir; that she used to handle her husband s salary. The allegations aga,nst petitioner No.1 who is accused No.3 is that her husband used to listen to his brother and did not properly accompany her. But for this line of statement against the petitioners, there is nothing alleged in the complaint as,ivell as in the 16'l Cr.P.C {ltatement of the de-facto complainant. / -1

7. In Criminal Petition No.23'15 of 2025 the petitioner is accused No.2 who is the mother-in-law of de-facto complainant. The only allegation leveled against the petitioner herein is that she along with her daughter used to handle the salary of her husband, but for that there is no other allegation B ln Criminal Petition No.226 1 of 2025 the petitioners are accused Nos.S and 6. Accused No.S is the maternal uncle of de- facto complainant, and accused No.6 is the paternal uncle of the de-facto complainant. lt is alleged that accused No.5 used to come to the house of the de-facto complainant and instigate her husband to perform second marriage as she could not give birth to a child Accused No.6 is the paternal uncle of accused No.'1 , he too used to instigate her husband to give divorce to her.

9. The contents of the complaint or the statement of LWl/the de-facto complainant herein do not disclose any specific incidents of harassment against the petitioners herein. The recitals of charge sheet also point out single line allegations against the petitioners herein. There is no other statement on record to disclose any other allegations against the petitioners herein. The absence of such alle$ations in the complaint and also the statement of LW'l would -l show that pr inra-facie, there is no case against the petitioners. Though the single line averment is made in the charge sheet, no other evidence is collected by the Police during the course of investigation as per the recitals of the charge sheet itself. Thus, the continuation o' prroceedings agairrst the petitioners hi:rein would be abuse of proc')ss of law. Hence, the proceedings are I able to be quashed

10. The Ape:x Court in Geddam Jhansi v. The State of Telanganal arrd also Dara Lakshmi Narayana y. State of Telangana2 he,td that when there are no specific allegations against the appr:llants the proceedings need to be quasherd. Thus, the appeal was allowed and the impugned order of the High Court I was set aside ard as a result, the proceedings before the t'ial Court were quashed 11 . ln the res;ult, these Criminal Petitions are allowed and the orders dated 16 01 2025 passed in C.C.No.950 of 2025 passed by the learned X'/ Additional Chief Metropolitan lVla 3istrate, Manoranjan Comrlex, Nampally, Hyderabad and the procr:edings against the petitioners are hereby quashed ' :o2s (o) AIJEI--sc 7 r688 '(2025) r SCC 735 / 5 l\rliscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. A.PRATHIMA PUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, '1. The XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Ma njan Complex. S ON OFFICER I 2 Nampally, Hyderabad The Station House Office r, Women Police Station, South East Zone, Hyderabad City

3. One CC to Sri Mohd.Moin Ahmed Quadri , Advocate (OPUC) 4 One CC to Srj Mohd.Ashraf AIi, Advocate (OPUC) 5. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

6. Two CD Copies Ks/PSL vV HIGH COURT DATED:26109t2025 ) COMMON CRDER CRLP.No.2261, 2295 AND 231 5 of 2025 T YIE "S ^.-:\ ,.rrs)i\ i 2l nct 20tr ( ,. :) , .\ ti r- ,, t, ,1_t' ( l r.r(-9 ALLOWING THE CRL.PS. 1 .6"N