Telangana and anotherz and Geeta Mehrotra and another vs Criminal Petition

Smt.Koraa Harika Reddy, D/o. Kora Surya Prakash Reddy, Wo. Linga Reddy Ravi Shanker Reddy, Aged about 34 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. Flat No.502, Sri Sri Heights, Ramalayam Road, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, Presently Rlo. 41641-2C, Patel Road, Aravinda Nagar, Cuddapah - 516002, Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondents/Defacto Complai nant 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 C.C.No.84 ol 2024 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Xll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally against the petitioners, in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 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 stay all further proceedings including the appearance of the petitioners in C.C.No. 84 of 2024 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge- cum-Xll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing t re Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing t re arguments of Sri C Sharan Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioners and E.Gart sh, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.'1 and nore appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.34O3 OF 2o25 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS seeking to quash tl-re proceedings agarnst petitioners/ accused Nos.2 and 3 in C.C.No.B4 of 2O24 on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal Malkajgiri District, at Kukatpally (for short, "the trial Court") for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dou,ry Prohibition Act.

2. Heard Mr.C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 1-State.

3. The brief lacts of the case are that on 1O.7O.2023, respondent No.2 lde facto complainant filed a complaint against accused Nos.1 to 3 stating that the marriage between accused No.1 and respondent No.2 had taken place about nine (9) years back; that at the time of marriage, the parents of respondent No.2 gave Rs.30,OO,000/- worth cash, 20 tulas of Gold as dowry to accused No.1; that after marriage, they went to Bangalore and then, blessed \e'ith a baby girl during their wed lock; that the daughter u.-as sttffering from Neuro problems cllrc to rvhich, thel' shifted to Hyderabad for therr daughter's troatlne 1t. Respondent No.2 stated that a1-tt:r marriage, accusccl No. I rr rrl ltis relativcs subjected her to cr-ue1tr, and harassment [or \'. ]r rt of additional dou rr'; that accr-rscd No.1 used to cirink alcohol. I eat resporrdent No.2 and threatenect to kill her; that on 0B.1O.il() t3 ztl 21:00 her accused No.1 beat her and dragged her near 1 r : Gas c1'linder, threatened to kill l-rer and therebv necked her otti rom thc house. Petitioners / accused Nos.2 and 3 are the l::t ter in-lzru' and mother in-lau' of respondent No.2. Responclc r' No.2 ft.trther alleged that she l-racl informed about accused Nr'. to her in-[aws but they supported their son. Basing on tl-tt' said facts, the present crime is rcgistered

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners sttir nits that after marriage, respondcnt No.2 resided at Bangalor-' along u'ith her husband and the petitioners rcsided at Puli , rtdula, Andhra Pradesh. He states that the petitioners never rc: i led in the same roof along with their son and heuce, subjectirtli t rem to criminal prosecutlon 1:; nothing but abuse of process o [au'. He further statcs that the petitioners are senior citizerts rnd no specific allegations are attributed agairrst the petitir,r;ers. Therefore, -...**- .. ? -+liF,]i. :!&+'4FEq+=!?!'!!ii' :. ' ./,/, '' .,) relying on the decisions passed by the Hon'b1e Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar (dr Sonam and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Othersl, Dara Lakshmi Narayana and Others Vs. State of Telangana and anotherz and Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another3, he seeks to allou, the Criminal Petition

5. Opposing the same, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contends that upon completing thorough investigatron respondent-Police har.e laid charge sheet against petitioners and accused No. 1 before the competent criminal Court. Therefore, he contends that indulgence of this Court, at this stage, is not warranted and seeks to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

6. Having regard to the submissions of both the learned counsel and upon perusing the material available on record, this Court without going into the merits or demerits of the case, is inclined to direct the petitioners to file al appropriate applicatron seeking to discharge them before the trial Court by raising the I I contentions raised in this Criminal Petition. Upon filing of such ' 2022 Lawsuit (SC) 149 ' 2024 SCC OnLIne SC 3682 '1zotz1 e s.c.n. 6+t 4 applicatlon, the trial Court shal1 exarr ine and pass appropriate orders, as per laur. 7 . Accordingl_v, this Criminal Petition is clispc s ed of. Hon ever, sor-rght for by thc learned counsel for thc: :ctitioners, the appc:lrance ol- the petitioners / accused No.2 an I il is dispensed u,ith in C.C.No.B4 of 2024 before the tna Ctourr rvhen reprcsented by their counsel on record subjr tr to fihng an affid:rvit b1' the petitioners stating that in thr: r absence, the proccedings conducted by their counsel wiil no bc disputed by them in anv manner. However, the petitloners sha I appear before thc lcarned Maglstrate as and when their pre selt: : is required. In the event of failure of the petitioners to appear ',, hen tl-re Court directs, this order dispensing with their apl)r arance stands vaca-ted aulom aticallv Misccllaneous Petitions, pending if any, sherl stand closed SD/- i! . OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSIIiTANT REGISTRAR (G SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri district, at Kukatpally

1. The Xll Additional Junior Civil Judge cum Xll Additional t\ etropolitan ' Z if-,JStrtion House officer, kukatpally Police Station' Clt erabad 5. r*o CCs to public prosecutor, High bourt for the State c l' Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] a. One CC to Sri C Sharan Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies ABK/gh l':'"-5ffi I /;.,/ \ /i a- o ':. fH5 -q t)l /{. I 0 lt0tt 45 !: i -..sp,r ic HIGH COURT DATED: 0410812025 ORDER CRLP.No.3403 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION o 6 Itl