In one of the recent pronouncements vs Pardiwala, j.), the legal principle appticable

Petition under Section 482 of Cr'P C praying that. in the circumstances stated in tne UemoranOum of Grounds oi Criminal petition' the High Court may b-e pleased.to f irr r"i proceedings in *.*lti"" to the C C No g 319t2o21 on the file of the Xlll .i", njjr"ih"i r,rt"rloporiirn tilagistrate, at Hyderabad pending disposal of the main petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri TCK Singh' Advocate for the Petitioner and SRI M.VIVEKANANDA REDDY, ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri H sudhakar Rao for the Respondent No 3 The Court made the following: ORDER I i I I I THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.36Bt of 2O2S ORDER: This Oriminal petition is hled seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.93 19 of 2027 on the hle of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, I{ampally, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishabl: under Sections 498-4 of the Indian penal Code, 1860 (for sl--ort 'lPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowrv Prohibition Act, 1 96 1 (for short ,Dp ActJ.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 16. 1O.2015 respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complainant against the petitioners stating that her marriage was performed on 10.08.2013 as per Muslim customs and traditions with petitioner No. l. She alleged that from the very beginning of 1.he marriage, she was subjected to physical and menta-l harassment by her husband, mother_in_law, and father-in-1aw. both in Jeddah (Saudi Arabia) and Hyderabad, in connection q,ith demands for additional dowry in the form of money, golrl, and electronic items. Her father had alreadv 2 SKTI,J Crl.P-No.3531 of 2025 given cash of Rs.25,OO,OO0/-, along with gold and diamond jewellery, expensive clothes, and electronic items at the time of marriage. She further stated that her husband and mother-in-law poured hot water on her several times while they were in Jeddah. This harassment was brought to the notice of her father, who lodged a complaint with the Consulate General in Jeddah on 29.O4.2OI5.

3. She further alleged that her father-in-1aw, Dr. Lateef Mohiuddin Khan, also used to beat, harass, and mentally torture her. During her pregnancy, she was made to do household work and was not given proper care. Her salary was taken away by the in-laws. Despite having two children, her in-laws insisted that the expenses for the children be borne by her parents. When she became pregnant with her second child, the harassment escalated' Her husband and in- laws decided to send her to Hyderabad for delivery but demanded that her parents bear the cost of the air tickets. They also made baseless allegations about her character and spread defamatory messages iunong relatives. sKs,J Crl.P.No.3631 of 2025

4. On ..2.1O.2015, when her husbald arrived in Hyderabad, he called her to the airport along with the children. TJ-rere, he threatened her and picked an argument about the furniture. On 15. iO.2O15, when the furniture r,r.as being asserrLbled, her husband physically assaulted her by beating her with hands and legs. Both her husband and mother-in-law abused her in hlthy language and again demanded a,lditional dowry in the form of gold, a laptop, and a share in hrtr parental property. Her mother-in-law, Naheed Afroz, tool< away her phone and did not allow her to contact her parents. They also abused her parents. Subsequently, her husband and mother-in-law attempted to assault her father and {brcibly evicted him from the house located at Janaki Nagar. They also snatched both children from her. When she tried to get the children back, they shouted at her and humiliatr:d her further.

5. Basing on the said complaint, the police registered a case in Crime No.392 of 2015 of Golconda police Station, Hyderabad, f,:r the offences punishable under Section 49g_A of IPC and Se ctions 3 and 4 of Dp Act and after completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet, vide C.C.No.9319 of 4 SI(s;J Crl.P.No.363l of 2()25 2O2l befote the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners hled the present criminal petition to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

6. Heard Sri TCK Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as I Tell as Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy' learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.l - State and Sri H. Sudhakar Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 - de facto complainant.

7. karned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the entire criminal proceedings initiated by the de facto complainant are false, malicious, and an abuse of the process of 1aw and that the marriage between petitioner No.l and the de facto complainant was performed on 1O.08.2O13, and the couple was blessed with two sons. However, soon after marriage, the de facto complainant began quarrelling on trivial issues, deserted the petitioner No. 1 without any justifiable reason, and foisted multiple false criminal cases against him and his family. He further submitted that under police ; I I I I I 5 S}(S,J Crl.P.trIo.3631 of 2025 pressureJ she extorted money and eventually obtained a divorce, foll,twing which she remarried and is now living with her second husband. Despite this, she continues to harass the petitioners by initiating one proceeding after another.

8. Learnr:d counsel for the petitioners contended that the FIR and charge sheet were registered without conducting any preliminary inquiry or offering the petitioners an opportunity to be heard, and that the essential ingredients of Section 49g- A IPC ancl Sections 3 & 4 of DP Act are not made out against them. He further contended that the allegations are general, vague, and l,lck specific attribution to either petitioner No. 1 or petitioner N,r.2 and that the de facto complainant did not come to the Court with ciean hands and has used the tegal process as a tool for personal vendetta and unlavr.ful financial gain. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners by allowing this criminal petition.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 frled counter affidavit denying the averments made by the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that the present 6 sKs,J Crl.P.Io.3631 of 2025 petition is wholly devoid of merit and is a clear attempt by the petitioners to delay the due process of 1aw and escape criminal liability for the grave acts of cruelty and dowry harassment committed against the respondent and that the grounds raised by the petitioners are vague, self-serving, and do not satisfu the settled principles under which the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS may be exercised. He further submitted that respondent No 2 has made specihc and serious allegations of continuous physical and mental abuse, both in India and abroad, as well as demands for additional dowry.

10. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that the allegations are not bald or general but are supported by material placed on record, including a charge sheet that establishes a prima facie case warranting trial and that the petitioners are attempting to distort the facts by introducing irrelevant and unverified claims to divert attention from the real issues, and are trying to substitute trial proceedings with adjudication before this Court, which is impermissible under law. He further contended that the delay in the trial was largely due to the non-cooperation of the petitioners and ,. 7 sKs,J Crl.P.No.3631 of2025 evasive con.Cuct, including non-appearance, as evidenced by issuance ol NBW against one of the petitioners. The remarriage of respondent No.2 is irrelevant to the pending criminal proceedings, and does not negate the cruelty suffered by her during the subsistence of the marriage.

11. In sup,port of his submissions, he placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court in Kaptan Singh v. The State of Uttar pradesh and Othersr, K. Sankara Rao v. State of Ap and Others 2 , and D. Surender Reddy v. State of A.ps. Therefore, he prayed the Court to disrniss the Criminal petiiion.

12. karned Assistant Public prosecutor submitted that the allegations leveled againsl the petitioners are serious in nature, whi<:h requires trial. At this stage, quashing of proceedings against the petitioners does not arise and therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition. '202t 3 AcR 28qz ' 2024 o apHca4lc'l 'zooz r nro 1cri1 :sr 8 ,' sKs,.r Crl.P.No.3631 of 2025

13. In light of the submissions advanced by both the learned counsel and on perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the core allegations pertain to acts of harassment ald dowry demands allegedlV committed by petitioner No.1/husband, his mother, and father during the subsistence of the marital relationship with respondent No'2' The complaint narrates incidents of both physical and mental cruelty, specific to certain dates and circumstances, some of which allegedly took place in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, and Hyderabad. These ailegations against petitioner No'1 are not only serious in nature but also supported by the charge sheet and prima facie disclose the ingredients of the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act. Therefore, these allegations require full-fledged trial and adjudication before the competent Court'

74. At this stage, it is imperative to note the judgment of the Hon'bie Supreme Court in Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana and anothera, wherein in paragraph No.35, it is held as follows: 4criminal Appeal No. 2379 of 2024 L, ,// 9 SI(S,J Crl.P.Ito.363I of 2()25 "35. In one of the recent pronouncements of this Court in Mahmood Ali and Ors vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., 2023 SCC Online SC 950, authored by one of us (J.B. Pardiwala, j.), the legal principle appticable apropos Section 482 of the Cr.p.C was 'xamined. Therein, it was observed rhar ',r.hen an accused comes before the Higl.r t)ourt, invoking either the inherent power rrnder Section 482 Cr.P.c or the extraordinarv jurisdiction under Article 226 of the (lonstitution, to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed, essentially on the ground that such proceedings are marifestll, frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances, the High Court owes a cuty to look into the FIR with care arld a little r-rore closely. It was further observed that it vrill not be enough for the Court to look into t1e averments made in the FlR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether dre necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not as, in fi ivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending c:rcumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above t-tre averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection, to try and read between the lines., 15 However, with respect to petitioner No.2, who is stated be the rnother of petitioner No. 1, appears that the <a- 10 sKs,J Crl.P.No.3631 of 2025 allegations are general and omnibus in nature' There are no specilic overt acts attributed to petitioner No'2 apart from vague allegations that she instigated petitioner No' 1 and occasionally participated in verbal abuse' No particular incident or evidence is placed on record that clearly connects petitioner No.2 with the specihc allegations of cruelty or unlawful dowry demands. In fact, there is no material to suggest that petitioner No.2 was continuously residing with the couple or played an active role in the matrimonial discord'

16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Preeti Gupta vs' State of Jharkhand s , has cautioned against roping in family members residing separately on the basis of vague and general allegations. Similarly, in.Achin Gupta (cited supra) and Mahmood AIi (cited supra), it has been held that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS), the High Court must scrutinize not just the FIR ald complaint, but also attending circumstances to determine if the prosecution is manifestly vexatious or frivolous. In the present case, even if the allegations in the complaint are taken at face value, they do not disclose specific t(zoro) z scc ooz I i I l I

1.7 sKs,J Crl.P.I{o.3631 of 2O2S or grave acr_s attributable to petitioner No.2 which warrant her prosecutior. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against petitioner No.2 is nothing but abuse of process of law. On the other hancl, as there are seriousness and specificit5r of allegations ;lgainst petitioner No. 1 , the proceedin gs insofar as he is concerned must continue to trial. 17 . Accorrlingly, the criminal petition is allowed in part and the proceedrngs against the petitioner No.2 in C.C.No.9319 of 2021, on the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitar: Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed. Further, the prosecution is directed to proceed with the case agaLnst petitioner No. 1/accused No. 1. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shali also stand closed. . SD/-M.NAGAMANI s\srarur REGTSTRAR S //TRUE COPY// \i tI SECTION OFFICER To, 1- The Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad District 2. The Station House Officer, Golconda Police Station, Golconda, Hyderabad District 3. One CC to SRI TCK SINGH Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI Fl SUDHAKAR RAO Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad

6. Two CD Copies VM/ABKqr HIGH COURT DATED: 1110712025 ORDER CRLP.No.3531 of 202S -(ili: iJ L.i ':: ( [}B tt' ",nl '1,> .i) ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION IN PART o@' Y*{"o