The High Court · 2025

2. Ms.V.Anusha,, D/o Mr.V.Nagesh Goud, Aged about 33 years, Occ. Private Employee,, H.No.3-2-214, Nimboliadda, Kacheguda Hyderabad- 500 027. ..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS 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 quash the Proceedings in CC.No.330O12021 in FlR No.815 ol 2019 pending on the file of Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad against the Petitioner No.1 and 2 and pass. l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 Petition under Section 482 ol Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in CC.No.3300/2021 in FlR.No.B15 of 2019 pending on the file of Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad against the Petitioner No.1 and 2, including the appearance, pending disposal of the above petition and pass. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argumentr; of Sri G A/AHESH REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri ltrl.Vivekananda Fleddy, the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No-1 and lSri G. Anand Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent No.2- The Court made the following; ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.288O OF 2025 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 528 o[ Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioners seeking the Court to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.3300 of 2O2l on the hle of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Ma6{istr:rte at Nampatly, Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the pctitioners are under Sections 498-A, 406 and 5O6 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act-

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 25.1 1.2019. at 16:00 hours, a complaint was received from respondent No.2, u,ho is the de facto complainalt alleging that she is the legally wcdded wiie of petitioner No. 1 and that their marriage was solemnized on

19.11-2015, in Hyderabad, as an arranged marriagc. The complainant stated that her father spent Rs.8,0O,O00/- on the marriage, including Rs.75,O00/- for bike, 15 tulas of gold, household articles worth Rs. 1,OO,0OO/- and a sarec worth Rs.25,000/- for her mother-in-law. She furthcr stated that petitioner No.1 and his family demanded Rs.4,O0,0O0/- as dowry, \--r 2 which her father reluctantly paid. After the r.'narriage, the complainant joined petitioner No. 1 in his house, r;lrert: she was allegedly trcatcd brulally by her in-laws. Her husbernd, the petitioner No- I , was in the habit of consuming al<:ohol and would beat her for flinrsy reasons and his parents allegecll', harassed her continuously, dcmanding additional dowry of Rs. 10 0i),00O/ - from her parents. The complainant became pregnant rrnrl wets left in her parental home in the ninth month of pregll:lncy, as per custom. Petitioner No. 1 ailegedly beat her durinSl h r:r pregnancy and did not visit hcr at her parental home. Petitrrller No. 1 and complainant u,erc blessed with a baby boy on 07.1 )..)076 and the 2 1$ day ceremony was arranged by her parents. I rut after the ceremony, her husband did not take her back to lrrs home and when her parents demanded petitioner No.1 to take rcr back to the matrimonial home, he refused stating that unless a<lcitional dowry of Rs. 1O,OO,O0()/ is paid he would not take her. I I w:rs further stated that on 17.ll.2ol9, when she along with ht:r parents went to her husbantl's house, she came to know that :rt'titioner No.1 had obtained an ex parte divorce decree on 15.07 :1019, against her b1. giving wrong address for serving the notice, q l-tich resulted 3 in the notice not being served. Despite the court's direction for personal service, the notice was returned un-served. Her husband allegedly served a memo with [a1se averments stating that he had served the notice personally and through courier, and that she had refused to take the summons. She alleged that her husband u,as in the proccss of getting married again, based on the ex-parte decree obtaincd through false means ald by misleading the court. Hence, requested the police to take action against the accused. Based on these allegations, a case was registered against the petitioners vidc FIR No.815 of 2Ol9 for the above offences.

3. Heard Sri G.Mahesh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent-State and Sri G.Anand Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.

4. The contention o[ learned counsel for the petitioners is that the 2"d respondent left petitioner No.1's society in May 2O16 and hled a complaint alleging cruelty and dowry demand in November 2O 19, more than three years later. The petitioners claim they did not commit any offenses as alieged in the complaint. Instead, 2"d respondent lodged the complaint upon learning that petitioner 4 -r No.1 u,as getting married again on 29.11.2019, as zr counter to the divorce pctition filed by petitioner No.1 in ._lantiry 20 18. He further contended that according to the complairrt and charge sheet, petitioner No. I left the 2nd respondent in her rnr,iternal home during hcr ninth month pregnancy in the year 2O )6 following a customary practice. However, the 2-d respondent \\,as not taken even after the birth of their son on 07.12.2016. The .l',.r respondent allegedly made no efforts to join petitioner No. 1. --he complaint lacks specific detarls about the alleged cruelty and clou ry demands, except for a bald allegation o[ demanding an additional dowry of Rs. I 0,00,000/ .

5. Further the statements of LW2 and LW3 zr -e replicas of PWl's statement. Independent witnesses LW4 to LW6 do not mention dowry or cruelty bu t state that petitior.er No. I , his parents, and the 2'rd respondent used to quarrel 'l'here is no concrete evidence to support the allegations marl.: by the 2na respondent and her paren ts. 'l'he petitioner No and 2nd respondent were separatecl in the year 2016, ald r:he complaint was hled in November 2019, resulting in a delay of m.,r:' than three years. Further as per complaint, the 2nd responcle:rt artd her 5 parents visited the house of petitioners on 17. 11.2O19 but complaint was given on 25.11.2019 where there is a delay of seven days in registering the FIR. The petitioners claim they are innocent and have been falsely implicated. They deny all allegations as false, baseless, ald concocted and due to their false implication in the criminal case, the petitioners have suffered loss of reputation and mental harassment. As such, prayed this Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

6. On the oLher hand, Iearned counsel for the 2'd respondent would submit that the complaint and charge sheet disclose the allegations of cruelty, dowry demald and emotional abandonment during pregnancy of 2"d respondent. The divorce decree obtained by petitioner No.1 by showing wrong address of 2nd respondent is undcr challenge in C.R.P.No.21 13 of 2022. He also contended that Lws.4 ald 5 also stated about quarrelling and harassment made by the accused. Petitioner No. 1 is in the habit of making marriages as he performed two marriages. The 2"d respondent came to know of ex parte divorce decree only on 17.11.2019 as she had no knowledge of the divorce due to the wrong address given by petitioner No. 1 and complaint was frled on 25. 1 1.2O 19 therefore, J 6 there is no delay. The conduct of petitioner No.1 rs; r:lear that he remarried within four months of the ex parte divorce decree' Hence, a1l the facts would be known, only during the course of trial. As such the petitioners are not entitied for quashing of proceedings and prayed to dismiss this petition.

7. Considering the submissions made by both thc counsel and the material on record this peti[ion is filed by ,r'.1 'and A'2' Petitioner No.1/A. 1 is the husband arrd petitioner llc.2/A.2 is the father in-law of 2"d respondent. The charge sheet ar-r d statement of witnesses shows that all the allegations are against .,\. i. According to the 2"d respondent A. 1 neglected her, he used to Crink alcohol and harassed her. Even during her pregnancy also i\. 1 beat her' Initially complaint is hled against A. 1 to A.3 and alr;o the relalives of A. 1 and while fiting charge sheet, the names of r\"r to A.7 were deleted. Learned counsel for 2"d respondent vehcrrLently argued that A. 1 played mis-chief ald obtained ex parte divc r'- e and within four months of divorce he re-married. Al1 these il;sues require adjudication. As there are no specific allegations agrlitrst petitioner 1 No.2, the proceeclings against him are liable to be quashed and the proceedings against petitioner No.1 are liable to be continued.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed quashing the proceedings against petitioner No.2l A.2 in C.C.No.3300 of 2O2l on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad and the criminal petition in sofar as petitioner No. I /A. 1 is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- M. NAGAMANI SISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrateat Nampally, Hyderabad 2. The Station House Officer, Women Police Station, CCS, Hyderabad 3. One CC to SRI G MAHESH REDDY Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, Hrgh Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. One CC to Sri G. Anand Kumar, Advocate.[OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies TPK/gh HIGH COURT DATED:05/08/2025 1l,iF:; C) '\ 2 3 sEP ztlzt * a,-^ :) '.) \. ORDER CRLP.No.2880 of 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION IS PARTLY ALLOWED