The High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad.

2. V.S.Sudhakar, S/o.Late V.S.Mangiah Sharma, aged about 58 years, Occ. Practicing Advocate, R/o.'15-5-377, Osman Shahi, Hyderabad. ...RespondenU Defacto Complainant Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the entire records of Docket Order dated 1011012023' passed in c.c. No.8575 of 2023 on the file of the court of the ll Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad and quash the same. l.A. NO: 1OF 2024 ) Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that irt the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to granl stay of all further proceedings includ ng presence of the petitioners in C.C.No.8575 of 2023 on the file of the Coun rf the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, pending disp,;521 of the above Crl.P. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing .he Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing .he arguments of Sri Vadlakonda Ravi Kumar Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor c n behalf of the Respondent No.1, and of Sri Mohd Yakub Ali, Advocate fr>r the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER ) THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINA L PETITTON No.2993 of 2024 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 4g2 of Criminal Procedure Code by the petitioners-accused Nos. I to 6 seeking to quash the Docket Order dated 10.10.2023 passed in C,C.No.g575 of 2023 by the leamed II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad against the petitioners herein.

2. Heard Sri Vadlakonda Ravi Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, leamed Additional public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.l-State and Sri Mohd yakub Ali, learned counsel for respondent No.2. perused the record.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that the marriage of the 3d petitioner was solemnized with the son of the 2,d respondent on

09.08.2020. The Petitioner Nos. I and 2 are the parents of the 3'd petitioner; petitioner Nos.4 is the brother and petitioner No.5 is the cousin of 3'd petitioner; petitioner No.6 is the son-in-law of petitioner Nos.l and 2. \\--\, --',-J 2 JS, J :,1.P-No.2993 of 2024 ) 4 It is stated that the 3'd petitioner herein, due to hrlassment faced in her matrimonial home, lodged a complaint datetl 12.07.2021 at WPS, Karimnagar, which was registered as FIR No.78 of 2021 dated

17.07.2021 under Sections 498-4, 420, 506.of IPC. .,\ charge sheet was filed and the case was taken on file as C.C.Ntt.\037 of 2021, which is pen(ling before the Special Judicial First (llass (Excise) Magistrate, Karimnagar. The 2nd respondent hereirL IS arraved AS Accused No.2 in the said case.

5. lt is stated that the 3'd petitioner also initiated pro,reedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violencr Act, by filing D.V.C. No.10(r of 2021 on 20.10.2021, wherein the l:"'r respondent is anayed, as Respondent No.2 and the same is penJing before the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (PCR), Karirn ragar.

6. It is stated that the 3'd peritioner filed F.C.M.C. No.l4 of 2021 seeking maintenance, which is pending before the Farnily Court-cum- Additional District .[udge, Karimnagar 7 It is funher stated that the 2"d respondent is an Advocate by profession, and his elder son and daughter arc also practicing Advocates. On 18)08.2022, the 2nd respondent llled a private --a-" 7 3 JqJ Crl.P.No.2993 of 2021 i complaint, alleging that various incidents from December 2OZO to luly 2022, including allegations ofabuse, threats, trespass, and use offilthy language, further the 3'd petitioner became pregnant and she has undergone abortion at the instance of l't petitioner. The complaint was referred by the leamed Magistrate to the Afzalgunj police Station, and was registered as FIR No.407 of 2022 on06.09.2022 under Sections 420,447,504, 506,307,3s1,3s3, 509, 26(8) rtw 34 IpC. After investigation, the police found no material evidence to support the allegations and filed a final report recommending closure, citing that statements of 7 witnesses did not support the version of the 2"d respondent.

8. It is further stated that the 2nd respondent hled Crl.M.p.No. 1627 of 2023 in Cr.No.407 of 2022 and on the basis of sworn statement dated 03.08.2023, the learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance of offences under Sections 324,504 and 506 ofIPC and passed a docket order dated 10.10.2023 in C.C.No.9575 of 2023 summoning the petitioners herein despite closure of report. Aggrieved by the docket order dated 10.10.2023, the petitioners are constrained to file the present pehtlon. 4 JS, J crl.P.No 2993 of 2024 -E-=.'1 \- \ ,

9. Leamed counsel for the petitioners cr,ntended that the Trial Court ought to have seen that there is no prinur.facie material to proceed against the petitioners under Sections 324,:;l'4, and 506 of IPC. The allegations in the private complaint does rot disclose the essential ingredients constituting the said offenct.s. He fufther contended that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the medical certificate dated 31-07-2022 was issued by Ramarao Clinic Diabetic Care Centre, Nallakunta, Hyderabad, which is far frorn the residence of the 2nd respondent at H.No. 15-5-317, Osman Shahi. near Afzalgunj Police Station. No ordinary prudent person would h.ar.,:l such a long distance after sustaining injuries, rendering the complainant's version inherently improbable and the medical evidence is unreliable. He further contended that the medical certificate retini to assault by "known and unknown persons," without naming the accused, which casts serious doubt on the veracity of the allegations rnd makes the document unreliable at first glance. He further cor tr:nded that the alleged time of the incident is stated to be 7:00 PN4 in thc private complaint, whereas the medical certificate mentions .he timc as 9:30 PM, this material contradiction further weakens the p"r,secution story. He further contended that the'frial Court failed to r:onsider that the 5 JgJ Crl.P-No-2993 of 2021 ) so-called eyewitness has not supported the case of the 2nd respondent, thereby removing the only purported independent corroboration to the allegations.

10. He further contended that the police, after a thorough investigation and examination of seven witnesses, have filed a final report closing the case for lack of evidence. The Trial Court erred in ignoring this vital development and still proceeded to take cognizance. He further contended that the instant complaint is a clear counter-blast to earlier cases filed by the 3'd respondent, including Crime No.78 of 2021 dated 17-01-2021 registered at WPS, Karimnagar, as well as proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act and a maintenance case. ThE present case is a malicious afterthought, filed with a view to pressurize and harass the petitioners, which is nothing but abuse of process of law. Further, the alleged incident is said to have occurred on 3l-07-2022, yet the private complaint was hled only on l't-08-2022. This unexplained delay further reinforces the suspicion of fabrication and concoction. Further, Section 324 of IPC is not attracted as the injury allegedly sustained is not only dubious but does not even meet the threshold required under Section 324 IPC, which requires evidence of voluntary hurt by dangerous weapons or means. 6 JS, J Crl P.No.2993 of 2021 t Further, the Trial Court failed to consider that neither the statements of listed witnesses nor the documentary evidence on rt:cord disclose the commission of any offence to warrant continual on of criminal proceedings, as such continuation oI proceedinl.s against the petitioners amounts to an abuse of the process of aw and causes undue harassment. Hence, he prayed to quash the proct:edings before the Trial Court.

11. In the present case, admittedly, the police filcd a final report -fhe Trial 'lourt without closing the case for lack of evidence. specifying any reason, taken cognizance and issued ;r-.mmons to the petitioners vide docket order dated 10.10.2023. This (lourt is of the considered view that the trial Court failed to provide any reaSon for its conclusion and the orders which are bereft of reasor,ing cannot be treated as good orders and liable to be set-aside. 12- With the above observations, this Criminal Petitron is disposed of by setting-aside the impugned docket order drted 10.10.2023 sed in C.C.No.8575 of 2023 by the learned Il ',\rlditional Chief politan Magistrate, Hyderabad and the matter is remanded to the 7 JS, J crl.P.No.2993 0f 2024 ) trial Court for passing appropriate orders assigning reasons for taking cognizance against the petitioners. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- B. REKHA RANI ASSI ANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// TION OFFICER To,

1. The ll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magislrate, Hyderab d 2. The Station House Officer, Afzalgunj Police Station, Hyde 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to Sri Vadlakonda Ravi Kumar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri Mohd Yakub Ali, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies NVB/kam HIGH COURT DATED:0210912025 ,/ l ORDER CRLP.No.2993 of 2024 ,<---- t it,'. ', i)i' !) '1 25 mt P5 ,l \-- i; .. DISPOSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION @ v) w