Culor High Court · 2025

PetitionunderSectron52BofBNSSprayingthatin.thecircumstances stated in the Memorand.-rm of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may bepleasedtoquaShtheproceedlngsagainstthepetitioner/accusedno,lin C.C.r'.to.:gSZtZ022 on the frie of the Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan MaOist$e at Narnpally. Hyderabad l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under seclion 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandunr of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may bepleasedtodispensewithappearanceofthepetltioner/accusedno.lin c c No.3957/2022 on the file of the Xlll Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad perrding disposal of the same l.A. NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated tn the Memorandunt of Grounds of crirninal Petition, the Hrgh court may L" pr"r."O to stay all furtlrer proceedrngs agarnst the petitioner/accused no. 1 in C.C.No 3957/2022 on the file of the Xlll Additronal Chief A/let opolrtan IVlagistrate at Nampally. Hyderabad. pendrng disposal of the same This Petrtion coming on for hearing, upon perusing :l e Memorandum of Grounds of Crtminal Petition and upon hearing the argumer 1; of Sri Nageshwar Rao Pularr .Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri E Ganesh. tre Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana on behalf of the Resp r rdent No .l and Sri P V. Radha Krishna, Advocate for the Respondent No 2 The Court made the following: ORDER 4; j if,l It I ': Jt - THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.2472 OF 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Nanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS") seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.1 in CC No.3757 of 2022, pending on the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistratc at Nampally, Hyderbad

2. Heard Ms.Sandhya Rani Racl-rarla, Iearned counsel for t petitioner, Sri tr.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1 and Sri P.V. Radha Krishna, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the record

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 02.01.2021 at 13.30 f hours a complaint has been fiied before the WPS, CCS, DD Poiice Station, Hyderabad, wherein the d.e-facto complainant stated that on 18. 1 1.20 18 the marriage of the de facto complainant was performed with accused No. I at Shubham palace, Karmanghat, Hyderabad. At the time of marriage the parents of the de-facto r'complainant presented 50 tulas gold, 1O lakhs cash and 2 Kgs of silver articles on the demand of accused. Soon i,Lfter marriage, - !L- 1 \ .-*t{ I the de-facto complainant joined the societv of the accused. - Thereafter. accused Nos.1 to 3 used to 1r Lrass her. The petitioner accused No. i used to avoid her. Ac :used Nos. I to 3 used to abuse her and harass her physici 1 -v and mentallv Thercfore, the petitioner along with other accr-lri )d has committed the offence under Sections 498-A ar-rd 406 of IF O and Sections 3 and 4 of Do\,ry Prohibition Act

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would ;ubmit that none of the allegations made against the petitiorr:r rvould attract agelnst him to try the petitioner for the offen: :s undcr Section 4gB A, 406 ol IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DI Act, and to puU i pressure upon the petitioner, a false complaint -ras been filed b_v thc de facto complainant respondent No.2 rvitl an intention to obtain divorce from the petitioner. The allegat r ns made against the petitioner are general and omnibus allegz tions. It is the .t matter on record that the conjugai reiation; rip bet',i,een the petitioner and de-facto complainant has not takr n place. Despite the said fact, it cannot be assumed that the de.f rcto complainant and accused No.1 had stayed separately from the marriage till thcir separation. Therefore, the p-eliloner can -r rt be prosecuted J for the offence under Section 406 of Ipc. Hence seeks indulgence of this Court to allorv this criminal petition.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submit that the most of the relatives and 'ehemently family members of the petitioner have continuously invorved in the daily life of the de-facto complainant and the accused so as not to lead the conjugal life, the petitioner had roamed around other countries with his cousins and has not taken family responsibilities and he is interested only on the funds to be given to him. It is apparent on the record that on the very 3r.(i da,V of death of father of the de-facto complainant, accused No. t had demanded money from the de facto complainant lor purchasing of a house and during subsistence of their marriage, accused No. 1, in-laws and other accused have subjected the de facto complainant to cruelty. Since, the life of the de_facto complainant has ruined, having no other option; a complaint has been filed by the de-facto complainant. Under these t: clrcumstances, he seeks to dismiss the criminal petition ) !j 6 Taking the same lines, learned Assistant public prosecutor wouid submit that a memo of evidence has been filed by recording the statements of witnesses uncrer Section 161 cr.p c 4 .- 1 .) " -d.al I statement and unless the trial is allowed to l'e continued, the truth in this case can be elicited, hence, he se: <s to dismiss this crimrnal petition. 7 . Having heard learned counsel for the p :tittoncr, Iearne d counsel for rcspondent No.2 and learner1 Assistant Public Prosecutor and upon careful examination r f the complaint against the petitioner-accused No. 1, this Court seized of the fact that the allegations are made against the petitir ner accused No.1 and his family members. Based upon thc cor-l :laint filed under Section 498 A, 406 of IPC and Section 3 rr rd 4 ol DP Act, stalements of u,itnesses u,ere recorded and on t:rusal of memo of evidence, it is noticed that apart from the de I Lcto complainant{ his mother and sister were exarrrined, tr'-t I are interested witnesses at-rd no other independent witness(r i \,\rcrc examincd So far, Section 4O6 of IPC is concerned, Sectio: 405 of IPC refers ,: criminal breach of trust, r,vhich is exd.cted here tr rder: Sectton 4O5: Criminal breach of trast-Whoeu onA maruLer enl.rusted utith propertg, or tuith <trttl t r properl!-t, dtshonestlg nisappropiotes or corluetl: use that propeftA, or dishonestlg uses or dispt propertlJ in uiola.tion oJ any direction o1" laut prescril.i. i.n tuhich such trust is to be discharged, or of cLng l,t express or im.plted, uhich he hc-s made touching t.L of such tru.st, or u,,i[uIg suffers any other pers t com.mits "cimincrl brectch ol trust". :r, beiutr rrt ntinion. ouer to LLis otun ;es of thcrt '.q th.e notle 'al con.trac.t, : dlscharlle 1so to d.o, Section 4O6 oJ IPC: Punishment Jor criminal breach o;f trust Wht;euer contnits cnm-inal breach of tr; r. t shall be \ -. ( ) put'Lished uith impisonment of either desciption for a term which mdA extend to three gears, or utith fi.ne, or tuith both. Ingredients of Section 406 of IPC: 1 The accused must have been entrusted \4,ith propert-v, which can be movable or immovable. The entrustment can be made in anv manner. iii. The person must hold the property on behalf of another person, acting as a trustee. IV Alternatively, the accused must have been given "dominion over" the property. '! ) B. The ingredients of Section 406 of IPC do not attract to the allegations made in the complaint against the petitioner-accused No.1. The allegations made against the petitioner shall not lorm any basis to try him under Section 406 of IPC. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the proceedings against the petitioner under Section 406 of IPC. So far as Section 498-,{ ol r IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act are concerned, they requires examining by the trial Court. &

9. Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed by quashing the proceedings against the petitioner accused No.1 under Sectior-r 4O6 of IPC. It is made clear that this Court does not make anv 6 observations so far Sections 498 A of IpC an<l Section 3 and 4 o1' DP Act Miscellaneous applications, if any, pe rding shall stand clo sed sD/- [ A,s:i ..JAWAHAR REDDY $rarur REGTsTRAR t //TRUE COPY' l \ SECTION OFFICER To, .l Ihe XlllAdditional Cnief A/letropolitan lVlagistrate at Narr rally, Hyderabad Hyderabad (OUT) Station House Officer. Police Station WPS, CCS,D I Hyderabad 2 .Ihe 3. Two CCs to the Publrc Prosecutor, High Court of Telangri na, 4 One CC to Sri. Nageshwar Rao Pujari Advocate [OPUC 5 One CC to Sri P t,/. Radha Krishna Advocate IOPUC] 6. T,rvo CD Copies I I - ---r l I t + A %- HIGH COURT DATED:11107nA25 ORDER CRLP.No.2472 ot 2025 ':.=>-. : ,l r.l' ti. r.) ll''- 16 J\r ;i02r -? ?: (D i. -A R[t * $ ( $ ,f t, / I( t. f CRIMINAL PETITION IS PARTLY ALLOV\ ED q V