The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the lVlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the charge sheet in C C.No.539 of 2018 on the file of the Special Judicial [\Iagistrate of lclass for Trial of cases under Telangana Prohibition and Excise Act cum lll Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sanga Reddy, for the offences U/sec 354, 498-4, IPC Sec 3 and 4 DP Act against the petitioners / Accused No. '1 to 3. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS 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 including appearance of the petitioners / Al to 43 in pursuance of the charge sheet in C.C.No.539 o'f 2018, on the file of the Special Judicial [Vlagistrate of I class for Trtal of cases under Telangana Prohibition and Excise Act.cum lll Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sanga Reddy. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments ol Sri PULllVlAt\rllDl SHASHIDHAR REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Sri E Ganesh, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2614 OF 2025 ORDER: The present criminal petition is filed by the petitioners/ accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 528 of BNSS, seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.539 of 2018, on the hle of the iearned Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for Trial of Cases Under Telangana Prohibition and Excise Act-cum-III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sanga Reddy, registered for the offences under Sections 354,49a-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act.

2. Heard Sri Pulimamidi Shashidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri E.Ganesh, learned assistant public prosecutor for the respondent No. I / State.

3. Crime in FIR No.636 of 2Ol7 on the Iile of the Police Station, Ramachandrapuram was registered basing on the complaint lodged by the respondent No.2/de-facto complainant. The allegations ievelled are that in-spite of receipt of dowry and other gifts, the accused, u,ho are the husband, in-laws and other family members of the husband of the respondent No.2, meted her out for additional clorvry and even they did not allorv her to move closely with her husband. She further complained that the efforts made by her parents through the elders to resolve the issues went in vain and hence, she lodged the present complaint. _/ I Page 2 ofs

4. Upon completion of investigation, the police laid charge-sheet in CC No.539 of 2078 and the same is pending adjudication before the trial Court.

5. Challenging the said proceedings, the petitioners, who were arrayed as accused Nos. 1 to 3 filed the present criminal petition mainly contending that the petitioners are innocent, they never involved in their day to day life or harassed the 2nd respondent, the allegations are vague anC omnibus and hence, the complaint lacks ingredients of the offences rvith which the petitioners were charge-sheeted, the issues between the 2nd respondent and her husband were settled amicabiy. Upon the statement of t he respondent No.2 before the trial Court that she was living happily with her husband, the trial Court referred the matter to Lok Adalat and the parties wcre kcpt under observation for 9O days and the matter was posted to 16.03.2020 but due to Covid 19 pandemic the matter got delayed and during the said period, the 2.d respondent died on 18.12.2020 due to Covid-l9. Stating thus, the petitioners filed copy of death certificate of the 2",1 responden t.

6. Or-r the other learned Assistant Put;lic Prosecutor opposed the present criminal petition n-rainly contending that the \ l f Pagc 3 of5 matter needs full-fledged triai to elicit the truth. Stating thus, he requested to dismiss the criminal petition.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and upon perusing the material on record, it can be seen that as per proceedings dated 14 .12.2019 of the trial Court, the de-facto complainant/ 2"d respondent herein reportcd that she rvas living with accused No.l/ her husband since one and half years. Accordingly, the trial Court referred the matte r to Lok Adalat and ke pt thc parties under observation for 90 days. The copy of death certificate dated O2.12.2O2I, issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Government of Telangana, Department of Medical & Health, revealed that during thc pendcncy of the procecdings before the trial Court, i.e. on 18.12.2O2O the 2"d respondent/ de-facto complainant died due to Covid 19 pandemic

8. The need for specific and detailed allegations of cruelty or harassment before proceeding with a prosecution under Section 498-A iPC is the sine-quo-non. General or vague allegations are considered indicative of a matrimonial dispute and are not suflicient to warrant prosecution. In essence, while Sectipn 498A IPC' is intended to protect women from domestic \ violence, it cannot be used as a tool to harass or implicqte Paile ,l of 5 individuals based on vague or unsubstantiated allegations. The courts require specific and detailed evidence to establish a prima facie case beforc proceeding with a prosecution. In the case between State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and othersl the Hon'ble Apex Court categorically held that the power to quash FtRs should not be exercised lightly and should be done only in cases where the allegations do not prima facie constitute a cognizable offense. g. When the factual matrix of the case on hand are evaiuated on the touchstone of the proposition of law laid down, this Court finds no reason to continue the criminal proceedings against the petitioners herein since, there are no specific allegations lcvelled against them in the complaint and that the de- facto complainant admitted that she was living n'ith her husband. In that view of the matter, the present criminal petition deserves to be allowed.

10. [n the result, the crimina] petition is allowed, quashing the impugned proceedings against the petitioners in CC No.539 of 2018, on the file of the learned Special Judicial 1992 AtR 604 I i ! I'age 5 of5 Magistrate of I Class for Trial of Cases Under Telangana Prohibition and Excisd Act-cum-lll Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sanga Reddy. As a sequei, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. //TRUE COPY// D/. MOHD. ISMAIL D PUTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER

1. The Special Judicial Magistrate of I class for Trial of cases under Telangana Prohibition and Excise Act cum lllAdditional Junior Civil Judge, Sanga Reddy

2. The Additional Judicial First class Magistrate at Sangareddy 3. The Station House Officer, Ramachandrapuram Police Station, Cyberabad 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

5. One CC to SRI PULIMAMIDI SHASHIDHAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies r\I)K,,gh \ To, HIGH COURT DATED:2510412025 ORDER CRLP.No.26'14 of 2025 ( 3, 1 J \ 1HE S14 14: 7 JUII (a M o 2 9s-^ ALLOWIN(; THE CRLP I I I 0\ I x b \