The High Court · 2025

By its public Prosecutor, High court judicature Telangana, Through SHO, Police station,

2. Neeradi Manjula, w/o.Shekar, aged about 32 ye-ars,Occ, Coolie, R/o Yedutla Village of Goiralpeta Mandal of of Wanaparthy District. ...Respondente/De-facto 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 call for the records in CC No.1212 of 2024 onlhe file of il Additional Judicial f:irst Class tVlagistrate at Wanaparthy Town and Dist. l.A. NO: 2 OF 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 against the petitioners/Aicused No. 1 to 7 in C.C.No- 1212 of 2024 in ll Additional judicial First class Magistrate At Wanagarhty. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the tvlemorandum of Grounds of Crimin,al Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M.Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, l\dvocate for the Petitioner and Sri Syed yasar Mamoon, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and there being no representation for Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER c THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3666 of 20125, ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.l to 7 in C.C.No.l2L2 of 2024 on the fiIe of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 82(1), 352 read with 3(5) of BNS.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 04.11 .2024 the de facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Police stating that she had married Neeradi Shekar of the same village on

25.01.2012 through a love marriage, which was later accepted by elders. The couple initially lived at Yellammabanda, Kukatpally, and after a year were blessed with twins, a boy and a girl, and lived happily for four years. In the year 2OL8, her husband left home without informing her, and despite her efforts, he could not be traced. Thereafter, her in-laws, namely Shanthamma, Bhagavanthu, her brother-in-law Neeradi Bharathaiah, sister-in-law Bharathamma, and her 2 sKs,J Crl.P.No.3666 of 2025 husband chennaiah, harassed her both physically and mentally for six years while she arone lookecl after the children. Later, she came to know that her husband had contractecl a second marriage u,ith Navya of chinthal, Hyderabad, and about a week prior to the complaint, she found them at Achampeta, brought them to yedtla, and a panchayat-hi was held before elders. During the panchayathi, her husband and in-laws threatened her by stating that she should live with all of them or hand over the chilrlren and go away, and they further warned her with dire consequences.

3. Heard Sri Madhirala Vishnuvardhan Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional public prosecutor appearing, on behalf of respondent No.l - State. Though notice served upon respondent No.2, none appeared on her behalf.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners were law-abiding persons and that, as .per the narration of the de facto complainant, petitioner Nos.l to 5 resided in one house while petitioner Nos.6 and. T resided in another, and therefore it was not possible for them to harass t { I l 3 sKS,J Crl.P.No.3666 of 2O2S the complainant. He further submitted that the petitioners were innocent of the offences arleged and had been farsely implicated, and that there was no truth in the alregations, which were invented only to harass and blackmail them. The counsel further submitted that there was no valid reason to register: a case against the petitioners and that the complaint lacked any basis to take cognizance. Therefore, he prayed the court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners by allowing this criminal petition.

5. on the other hand, learned Additional pubric prosecutor submitted that the matter is at the stage of trial and there are serious allegations against the petitioners. Therefore, at this stage quashing of proceedings against them do not arise and prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. In the light of the submissions made b5z both the learned counsel and upon a perLlsal of the materiar available on record, it appears that the marriage between the d.e facto complainant and accused No.1 was solemnized on 25'ol.2ol2, and disputes arose thereafter, leading to allegations of mental and physical harassment, dowry demands, and ill-treatment by accused No.1. The allegations -d 4 SKS,J Crl. P.ItIo. 366 6 ol 2ol25 against accused No.1 are specific and pertain to a':ts of cruelty and dowry harassment within the matrimonial home, and therefore, involve disputed questions of fact whi<:h cannot be adjudicated upon at this stage under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.

7. However, with respect to petitioner Nos'2 to 7, it appears that the allegations made in the complarnt are vague and general in nature, and no specific overt act has been attributed to them. There is no clear material to show that continuous presence in the matrimonial househrclld or direct involvem.ent in the alleged acts. The Hon'lcle Supreme Court in the ca.se of Preeti Gupta v. state of Jharkhandl, held that in matrimonial disputes, relatives who are not residing with the couprle and against whom no specific allegations are made should not be roped in casually, as it amounts to abuse of criminal process. In the present case, even assuming the allegations to be 8. true, the role of petitioner Nos.2 to 7 does not pima facie disclose commission of any offence, and continuation of ' 1zo:.01 7 st:c 667 I { 5 sKsl,J Crl.P.Ito.3666 of 2O2S proceedings against her would amount to abuse of process of Iaw. Hence, this court is of the considered view that the proceedings against accused No.1 shail continue, while the proceedings against petitioner Nos.2 to T are liable to be quashed. 9- Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed-in-part and the proceedings against petitioner Nos.2 to 7 in c.c.No. L2L2 of 2024 on the f-rle of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class, wanaparthy, are hereby quashed. Further, the trial court is directed to proceed further against petitioner No. 1. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. //TRUE COPYII SD/. C.DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGTS ON OFFICER To

1. The ll Additional Judiciat First Class Magistrate at 2. The Station House Officer, Gopalpet Police Station, 3. One CC to Sri M.Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri P 5. Two CCs to the Hyderabad. [OUT] 6. Two CD Copies Mallesh, Advocate [OPUC] Public Prosecutor, High Court for the state of Telangana, at rthy District. aparthy District. HIGH COURT DATED:08/09/2025 i I ORDER CRLP.No.3666 of 2025 J j.ii rJ 15 i\t E'J ALLOWING THE CRLP IN PART 1 \\ \