The High Court · 2025

Smt. Sonal Choudhary_@ Sonal Dhanturi, Wo. Sri. Rohit Saini Choudhary, Aged about 27_years, R/o- H.No.8-2-684/2, Sreemukh Levelz, A Block-202, Road No. 12, Besides Reliance Digital Lane, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad 500034

2. The State of Telangana. Rep Hyderabad. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at ...Respondents/Respondents/Petitioners lA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the proceedings pending in src No.01 of 2024 on the file of lll tVletropolitan lvlagistrate at Hyderabad during the pendency of the present criminal Revision Case. , / .,. ...;ti,. ., ../ -!r-- lA NO: 4 OF 2025 Petition unde| section 528 BNSS praying that in the lircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou 1 may be pleased to suspend the opetation of the order dated 25.01.2023 passer n Crl. NI P. No. 213 of 2O2i in DVC.No 94 of 2021 passed by lll lVletrop'olilan N4agistrate, at Hyderabad during the pendency of the present Criminal Rev s on Case. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI KHAJA AIJAZUDDIN Counsel for the Respondent No.'l: SRI DHARMESH D.K.JA SWAL Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI JITHENDER RAO Vl:ERAMALLA ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PI?OSECUTOR The Court made the following:ORDER I THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL REVI SION CASE No.210 OF 2025 - ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed to set aside the judgment dated 27.03.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.30 of 2024 by the learned Judge, I Additional Family Court-cum-XlV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Court, Hyderabad (for short ,,appellate Court"), confirming the order dated 25.0.1 .2023 in Crl.M.p No.213 of 2021 in DVC No.94 of 2021 by the learned lll tVletropolitan Magistrate (Traffic Mobile Court), Hyderabad (for short ,the Court').

2. The parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the DVC before the trial Court for the sake of convenience and clarity.

3. The facts of the petitioner in DVC are that the petitioner has filed Crl.M.P.No.213 of ZO21 requesting the Court to direct respondent Nos.1 to 3 to return her Stridhan or any other property or valuable securities, documents, certificates including other belongings pertaining to her and her husband being retained by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the matrimonial house anC that they did not allow her to collect the same and that she was driven out of the ) matrimonial home on 22.01 .2021. lt is the furttrer case of the petitioner that she went again on 12.02.2021 to her matrimonial home to collect the important belongings but i'r:spondent No.1 prevented her and her husband from entering lns de and abused using foul language and also attempted to assa rlt her and her husband. Subsequently, respondent No.1 has lodg -'d a false police complaint on 12.02.2021 as a counter blast. lt is h-'r case that she got married to one Rohit Saini Choudhary on26.0',1 2020 and that it was a love marriage involving inter cultural and intr-.-caste marriage and after the r:eremonies, she joined the company ,:f her husband at her in-laws place. She further submitted that respor dent No.1 is her step mother-in-law and respondent No.2 is tl e father-in-law, respondent No.3 is the sister-in-law and that her rr atural mother-in- law committed suicide in 1999. lt is submitted thilt at the time of marriage her father made it clear to her in-laws 'hat they do not believe in the concept of dowry but heeding to their request, he has spent huge amount for the celebration of marriage and that he has given a diamond bracelet worth of Rs.3 Lakhs to Disha Saini and diamond ring to respondent No.3 and that rr:spondent No.1 entertained evil intention and did not like 6"1 fe rlet married with Rohit Saini Choudhary and further made a demanc of Rs.50 Lakhs 3 as dowry and thus, his father has paid them Rs.50 Lakhs from the account of Swagath l\4arriage & Function Hall, a partnership firm run by his father along with others. On learning this, her husband felt very angry with the respondents 1 and 2 for their unjustified demand. Subsequently, the respondent No.2 has reluctantly transferred an amount of Rs.25 Lakhs to the account of Swagath marriage and Function hall through NEFT of Anil Kumar Chowdhary. That her father also gave gold and diamond jewellery worth of Rs.60 Lakhs and also presented B[\/W car to the bridegroom as per the demands of respondent No.1 and 2. She further submitted that her father and relatives also have presented Rado watch worth Rs.85,0001, ltlaserati Watch worth Rs.68,000/-, silver plates for pooja worth Rs.25,000/- to her, then her father and relatives have further presented the following gold and other articles to Rohit Saini Choudhary: a b c d e Watch with brand bearing Breitling worth of Rs.5.50 lakhs. Two tulas of Gold chain Rado Watch worth of Rs.1.00 Lakh Maserati Watch worth of Rs.68,000/- Bracelet weighing about 2.5 tulas

4. That all the above said items are in the custody of respor\dents 1 and 2. She further submitted that respondents .l \ 2 have presented a diamond set and the maternal grandmother of 4 Rohit Saini Clroudhary, has presented a gold set to t er at the time of marriage and that maternal uncle of Rohit Saini Cho Ldhary gave two gold sets anrl his other relatives also presenteci Rs.3 Lakhs as shagun to her and that the entire gold and di;rmond jewellery including the cash presented to her during the maliage are also in the custody of respondent No.1 in the matrimonial l^ome, except the diamond set given by respondents 1 and 2. Thus, she has made a list of wedding gifts and documents lying with the petitioners/accused. Therefore, she requested the Court to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to return all the above said it< ms.

5. The trial Court has allowed the petition in par and passed the following order on 25.01 .2023 "ln the result, the respondent is directed to return all fer documents which are very essential to lead their Iives, and tho;e documents shown as documents in 11th paragraph "a to h" (a). tr assport of the petitioner's husband (b). Aadhar card of the petitiorrer's husband (c). Medical files/papers of the petitioner (d). l Orh fina certificates of the petitioner's husband (e). 12th final certificates of t ]e petltioner's husband (0. Bachelor's degree certificate of Aurora College, Hyderabad of the petitioner's husband (g). I\/ir;ter's degree certificate of University of lVlanchester (h). Bank lrheque books issued by Vijaya Bank (BOB), ICICI Bank and l\ (is Bank and articles which were presented to the petitioners and l"er husband at the time of their marriage, shown as wedding gifts arrrl any valuable articles connected with their title those would be de<;iled with main DVC', 5 6, Aggrieved by the said orders, an appeal was preferred before the learned Family Court vide Crl.Appeal No.30 of 2024. The appellate Court after hearing both the parties has dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present revision is filed.

7. Heard the submissions of Sri KHaja Aijazuddihn, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Dharmesh D.K.Jaiswal, learned counsel for respondent No.'1 B. The learned petitioner counsel has submitted that the de facto complainant is bent upon harassing these petitioners and that prior to filing this DVC also she has filed a criminal case with all false allegations and that she claimed for return of articles as Stridhan but there is no discussion as to which articles come under Stridhan and were given to her as Stridhan is not clearly mentioned by the petitioner and even the trial Court has failed to appreciate the said fact, the appellate Court also has not gone into the said details. The appellate Court has simply dismissed the appeal without appreciating the evidence let in before the trial Court and the trial Court has not given any reason for allowing the petition. He further argued that the articles listed in the petition are not at all in the possession of the petitioners and thus, question of giving them to the \ ,\ 6 complainant does not arise. He therefore, prav:d to allow the revision and set aside the orders passed by the tri,rl Court and the appellate Court I The learned counsel for respondent No. l, on the other hand, has submitted that the revision is not at all maint rinable, that the orders passed in 1.A.No.213 of 2021 are interlocutcry order, hence, the revision is not permissible. He further argued ll',at the DVC was also allowed by the trial Court vide orders dated 12 1)1 .2024 and that the petitioner was granted the relief of returning h<: certificates and documents as contemplated in orders datec 25 01 .2023 in Crl.M.P.No.213 of 2021 and thus, the said orders rr,ere passed after a full-fledged trial, after an elaborate enquiry. He rurther submitted that the objections raised by the petitioner coun.. el are no more tenable in the eye of law, since already it is held try the trial Court after evaluating the evidence that the documents as well as the articles are very much in the possession of the p r:titioner and that they are liable to return the same and now they czrnnot put up any false story against them by not giving the articles. That nothing is pointed out by the counsel for the revision petitiorr:r as to whether any appeal is preferred as against the orders in D\/,) No.94 of 2021 7 He therefore, prayed to confirm the orders passed by the Courts below and prayed to dismiss the revision.

10. Perused the record

11. The trial Court has directed the respondents to return the documents vide Crl.tV.P No.213 of 2021 but whereas respondent Nos.'1 to 3 failed to comply with the orders. Thus, owing to the non- compliance of the said orders, the petitioner has again prayed the Court to direct the respondent Nos l to 3 to return the documents i.e. a) Passport of the petitioner's husband, b) Aadhar Card of the petitioner's husband, c) tvledical files/papers of the petitioner, d) 1Oth final certificates of the petitioner's husband, e) 12th final certificates of the petitioneis husband, f) Bachelor's degree certificate of Aurora College, Hyderabad of the petitioner's husband, g) tMaster,s degree cedificate of University of [r/lanchester, h) Bank cheque books issued by erstwhile Vijaya Bank, lClCi Bank and Axis Bank. Vide her Crl.lvl.P.No.407 of 2023, the said petition was allowed after a counter was filed by the respondents directing the petitioners to return all those documents. However, the petitioners failed to comply the 8

12. Thus, the record discloses that in pursuancr: of the orders in Crl.M.P No.213 of 2021, the respondents failed to comply the same and subsequently, another Cd.tM.P. was also filed ry the petitioner vide Crl.t\4.P.No.407 of 2023, which was also ordere,j in favour of the de facto complainant. Therefore, time and again the Courts are directing the revision petitioners to return the artir; es pertaining to the de facto complainant but they are not obtiging tht: said orders

13. A perusal of the record reveals that DVC N<>94 of 2021 was filed by lhe de facto complainant before lll Metroprrllitan Magistrate (Traffic Mobile Court), Hyderabad, pending which ,a Crt lVI.P.No.213 of 2021 was filed seeking the return of articles list,>d therein. The same was allowed by observing that the docurr ents which are required for the petitioner and her husband to lead llreir lives have to be returned. 'Ihe said orders were upheld by the aplrellate Court.

14. Section '19 of Protection of Women from D,:mestic Violence Act, 2005 is extracted hereunder for the sake of reference "'19. Residence orders.-(1) While disposing of an apc,ication under sub-section (1) of sectionl2, the Magistrate may, on teing satisfied that domestic violence has taken place, pass a residen:e order- (a) restraining the respondent from dispossessing or in any other manner disturbing the possession of the aggrieved pr:-son from the shared household, whether or not the respondent h ts a legal or ""eQliitable interest in the shared household; (b) directing the respondent to remove himself fror r the shared household; 9 (c) restratning the respondent or any of his relatives from entering any portion of the shared household in which the aggrieved person resides; (d) restraining the respondent from alienating or disposing off the shared household or encumbering the same; (e) restraining the respondent from renouncing his rights in the shared household except with the leave of the lvlagistrate; or (f) directing the respondent to secure same jevel of alternate accommodation for the aggrieved person as enjoyed by her in the shared household or to pay rent for the same, if the circumstances so require Provided that no order under clause (b) shall be passed against any person who is a woman. (2) The Magistrate may impose any addilional conditions or pass any other direction which he may deem reasonably necessary to protect or to provide for the safety of the aggrieved person or any child of such aggrieved person. (3) The Magiskate may require from the respondent to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for preventing the commission of domestic violence. (4) An order under sub-section (3) sha be deemed to be an order under Chapter Vlll of the Code of Criminat procedure, jg73 (Z of 1974) and shall be dealt with accordingly. (5) While passing an order under sub-section (1), sub-section (2) or sub-section (3), the court may also pass an order directing the officer in charge of the nearest pohce statton to give protection to the aggrieved person or to assist her or the person making an application on her behalf in the implementation of the order. (6) While making an order under sub-section (i ), the Magistrate may impose on the respondent obligations relating to the discharge of rent and other payments, havrng regard to the financial needs and resources of the partles. (7) The Magistrate may direct the officer in-charge of the police station in whose jurisdiction the Magistrate has been approached to assist in the implementation of the protection order. (8) The Magistrate may direct the respondent to return to the possession of the aggrieved person her stridhan or any other property or valuable security to which she is entifled to."

15. A bare reading of the said provision would envisage that the articles which come under her Stridhan of the victim or any other valuable property or valuable security to which she is entitled to be considered by the Court dealing with the application. Thus, the trial Court has rightly granted the relief of return of documents which l0 include the certificates of both the de facto comtr lainant and her husband and also the valuable items gifted to he!' at the time of marriage. The said documents are bound to ber returned to the petitioners. Hence, there is nothing to interfere with the orders passed by the trial Court and the appellate Colrt, therefore, the same are upheld. Therefore, there is no infirmi y in the orders passed by the trial Court and the appellate court, tirey are found to be in accordance with law and hence, there are ro merits in the revrsron

16. ln the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, sh rll stand closed Sc /- L. LAKSHMI BABU t)E UTY REGISTRAR F ,l I //TRUE COPY// ileclotr oFFrcER i To,

1. The I Additional Family Court-Cum-XlV Additional Metrc politan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

2. lll trletropolitan [Vlagistrate (Traffic Mobile Courl), Hyder rbad 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the Slate of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to Sri Khaja Aijazuddin Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri Dharmesh D.K.Jaiswal Advocate [OPUo 6. Two CD Copies N, N VB/psl r,"-1 _ "_it.a-*aaiil. '':: ": l':,: l . .. rrr.:i.'i}*{!xr},:::r:r..t*:- :r_':: :i:fa::' ' ': . HIGH COURT DATED:0810912025 CtL H IA r ORDER ,) ,) It0 12 CRLRC.N0.2.10 ot 2025 , Pi\i C, .,,., I ,!, _, - '/ .,' DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL REVISIOh| CASE $! ..'.,a-