The High Court · 2025

3. Anugu Buchi Reddy, S/o. Sri Anugu Satti Reddy, fged about 50 years. Occ Business, R/o. Om Residency, Buddha Nagar, Road No.7, Peerzadiguda, Hyderabad, Telangana.

4. Beemidi Tirumala Reddy, S/o. Beemidi Veera Reddy, Aged about 50 Years, Occ. Business, R/o. 5-101, Buddha Nagar Colony, Uppal Depot, Hyderabad, Telangana ...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 4 AND

1. The State of Telangana, Represented by Public Prosecutor High Court through P.S. Bhongir (Rural) ...RESPONDENT NO.1 2 Mrs.Pannala Akhila, Wo. Yenugu Venkat Reddy, D/o Mr. P. Shankar Reddy, Aqed about 28 vears, Occ. Home Maker, R/o. Medikuntapally Village, tvl-otakond u r Mahda I, Yad ad ri- Bhong ir District, Telangana. ...RESPONDENTNO.2/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT 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 FIR/Crime No.97 of 2025 registered by P.S Bhongir (Rural) for the offences under sections 137 (2)' 351 (2) R/w 3 (5) R/w 62 of BNS Act against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4. --!---r -,..; -i..:-. r. ,i+.,. ' ., l.A. NO: 2OF 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 stay of arrest of the Petitioners) in FIR/C rime No 97 of 2025 registered by the P S Bhongir (Rural) r-rnder sections 137 ()-),351 (2) R/w 3 (5) R/w 62 of BNS Act Pending disposal of the criminal Petition. This Petition r;oming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A P SURESH RAM, Advocate for the Petitioners and SRI M VIVEKANANDA REDDY, the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Respondent No.1 and of Sri GOPI REDDY CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY, Advocate for the Respondent No 2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3434 of 2o25 ORDER: This Criminal Petitron is filcd seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners / accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.97 of 2025 of Bhongir Rural Police Station, Rachakonda Commissioneratc, registered for the offcnces punishable under Scctions 137 (2\, 351(2) read with 3(5) read wiLin 62 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sar-rhita (for short 'BNS'). The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 / de

2. facto cotrplainant lodged a report against the petitioners before the Police stating that she had married Anugu Venkat Reddy on 25.02.2023 and initially lived with him at her aunt's house in Uppal for five mon[hs. Thereafter, they moved to Cincinnati, Ohio, USA, rn'here her husband worked. She alleged that since the marriage, her husband subjected her to mental and physical harassment and humiliated her publicly. Unable to bear the abuse, she informed her parents, who advised her to compromise. On 16.01.2025, she returned to India and stayed at her uncle Samala Satti Reddy's house in \Fr 2 SI(S,J Crl.P.No.3434 of 2025 a'''. ..i .1 Mannev:rriprrmpu village. On the evcning ol 30.01.2025. hcr ltncles, i.c.. the petitioners, allegediy camc to hcr uncle's hrrusc in an Innova vchiclc (TS08JF6347), lhreatened her, and atLempte(l to forcibly take her arva1.. Her uncle inten'ened, and bot h s re and hcr uncie escaped to Bhongir I-Iospital. I{ortever, the accused stayed lhere until 2''.3a hours, continurng heir attempts. As no resolutiorr cante from the village elders, she hled the complainI fearing lor her lile. Aggricvcd b;, the said complaint, the petitione rs llled the prcsent crinrin.rl petition to quash the proccedrngs against thcm,

3. Iicard Sri A.P. Suresh Ram, learned counst:l appcaring on beh alf o i the petitioners as u,ell s Sri M. \/ivekananda Reddy, Iearrred counsel appearing on behalf of rcspondent No.1 State and Sri Gopi Reddy Chandrasekhar Reddy, Iearned cour sel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

4. Learncd counsel for the petitioners submltled that Lhe petitioncrs r,r'ere innocent and had been falsely impiicated in the case lvitl-rout any involvement in the alleged crime, based solely on a feLlsc and baseless complaint lodged by the de facLo : ! 3 SKS'J crl-P.No-3434 of 2025 complainant and that the FIR appearcd to be an after- thought, aimed at pressuring the petitioners into succumbing to thc illegal demands of the complainar-rt He further submitted that Lhe complaint had bcen filed with mala fide intentions, solely to extorL a large sum of money from the petitioners by misusing the proccss of law Even il the allegations in the FIR n'ere taken at face value' they did not disclose any offcnce against the petitioners' and the contents of the FIR did not pimrt facie constitute any offence under the relevant provisions of the BNS' Therefore' he praSred the Court to quash the proceedings agains[ the petitioners by allot'ing this criminal Petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioncrs stating that the investigation was not yet completed. At this stage, quashing of proceedings against the petitioners does not arise. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal Petit ion' Learned counsel for respondent No'2 submitted that the 6. case is at the stage of investigation' At this stage, it cannot be SKS,J Crl.P.No.343+ of 2O2S '.;. '' 4 said that n() offcnce has occurred. He further. su bmitted that there is alrc,ady an MOU betrveen the partics ancl that the de .faclo comolarnan I is yet to receive some amount 1iom the petitio,ers. 'lhcrefore, he prayecl the Court to dismiss the criminal pct;tior-r. 7 allcgation a;lainst and upon p erusal In the Jight of the submissions made b), both thc parties of lhe material available on recorcl, lhc the petitioners is that they attempted to kiclnap the clc facto complair-rant, who allegedll, csc:rpcd and \vent to Bhorrgir Hospital. it is noted that the allcged incident is said i_o itare occurred on 30.O1_2025, whereas lhc F.IR was registert-'d onr-v on 04-o3-2o2s, based on a report submitted br., thc police. Ilztrlier, a clifferent FIR was registered as FIR No.28 ol 2025 for r.he offences punishable under Section s gS, Z7 , and 351(1) read wi[h Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Ser:tions 3 and 4 of the Dowry prohibition Act, arnd Section 66tr of the Information Technolory Act, 2OOg.

8. Horveve:, the presenl allegations were not mentionecl in that earlier F'IR. There is an unexplained delay of over a month in lodl1ing the present complaint, and the absence of 5 SI(S,J Crl.P-No.3434 of 2O25 thcsc allegations in the earlicr FIR raises scrious doubl about thc veracif of lhe present complaint. trven if lhe contents of the report are taken at face va1ue, they point only to an attempt, and in the absence of specific and consistent details, thc dclay and omission in the earlier FIR cast a shadou, on the credibilily of the aliegations. Moreover, the petitroners have already entered into a compromise and settled the matter with tl:e de facto complainant. Therefore, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitior-rers u,ould amount to an abuse of thc process o1 l2qr, and the same are liable to be quashed- 9 . Accordrngly, this criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No.97 of 2025 of Bhongir Rural Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closcd 1 I ASSI SD/- U.SUDHA TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Judicial First Class f\ilagistrate at Bhongir.

2. The Station House Officer, P.S. Bhongir (Rural), Rachakonda 3. One CC to SRI A P SURESH RAM Advocate IOPUCI : : 4 one CC to SIll GOPI REDDY CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY Advocate loPUCl 5 Two CCs to S;Rl PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. Hiqh Court for the State of Telangana. Hyderabad [OUT] 6 Two CD Copies \ GR1PSl Ye- { t HIGH COURT DATED:0410812025 ORDER CRLP.No.3434 of 2025 ALLOWING 'THE CRIMINAL PETITION qc.flnL ,&"