Chopra qnd another Vs.Bhartil , Geetha Mehrotra vs Stqte of Telangana and anothef and pr,ayed the

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to allow this Petition by quashing the Criminal Complaint vide C.C.No.2563 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (for Prohibition & Excise), Nalgonda, at. Nalgonda, in so far as Petitioner/Accused No. 4 herein is concerned, arising out of Crime No.107 of 2022, Dated. 19-11-2022, Women Police Station, Nalgonda. l.A. NO: 1OF 2023 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the ltrlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including arrest of the Petitioner in C.C.No.2563 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (for Prohibition & Excise), Nalgonda, at: Nalgonda, in so far as Petitioner/Accused No. 4 herein is concerned, arising out of Crime No. 107 of 2022, Dated. 19-11-2022, Women Police Station; Nalgonda. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. Ir/ore Shashi Kiran, Advocate for the Petitioners, Mr.E.Ganesh, Assistant public prosecutor, High court for the State of relangana, Hyderabad on behalf of the State/ Respondent No.1 and of Mr. pranay Sohini, Advocate for the llespondent No.2. The Court made the fo owing: ORDER: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.31O4 OF 2023 ORDER: The present Criminal Petition is frled under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner/accused No.4, seeking to quash the proceedings against her in C.C.No.2563 of 2022 pending on the frle of learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (for Prohibition & Excise), Nalgonda (for short, the trial Court'), relating to Cr.No.107 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A,504, 509 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 1-State and Mr.Pralay Sohini, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the record. \

3. The brief facts of the case a-re that the victim married accused No.1 on 08.12.2021 and at the time 2 ET/I/,J CRLP No.3l04 2023 of marriage, the parents of the victim gave 50 tulas of gold ornaments, 2 kgs silver and some cash to accused No.1 and other household articles as dowry After one month of marriage, the accused l,lo.1 and the other accused, who are in-laws and sistr:r-in-1aw of the victim, harassed the victim menta-lly and physically and also used to threaten her ryith dire consequences for want of additional dowry. Hence, a case was registered vide Crime No.1O7 of 2022 before the Women Police Station, Nalgonrla. It is stated that a-fter completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed uide C.C. No.2563 of 2022 on the hle of the learned Special Judicial First Class M,agistrate (for Prohibition & Excise), Nalgonda, for the offences punishable under Sections 498(4.), 504, 509r rlw 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of thc Dowry Prohibition Act. 3 EI/",J CRLP No.3104 2023

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners firstlg submitted that except omnibus allegations, there are I no specific allegations against the petitioner herein. He secondlg submitted that though there rs no corroborative evidence to prove the alleged offences, the petitioner is implicated in the case with false and fabricated allegations. He thirdlg submitted that the entire state of allegations is unclear including the dates and circumstances of the pa5rments made to the accused. He lastlg submitted that the petitioner has no role in the marriage life of the victim and accused No.1 and in this regard, he placed relialce on the judgments of the Apex Court in Neelu Chopra qnd another Vs.Bhartil , Geetha Mehrotra and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anotheP and also Dara Lakshmi Naragana Vs. \ 'tzoh) I SCC (Crt) 286 '? lzotz; to scc zar 4 EW,J CRLP No.3104 2023 Stqte of Telangana and anothef and pr,ayed the Court to a-llow the Criminal Petition.

5. Per Contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently opposed the submissions madr: by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the trial has to be conducted in order to elicit the true facts of the case, therefore, quashing the pro,:eedings against the petitioner, at this stage, does not arise Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the (lriminal Petition.

6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that since the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious irL nature and the trial is yet to be commenced, continuation of proceedings before the tria_l Court is necessar5r to corn€ to right conclusion: Hence, he prayed the \ Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 3 2024 0 Supreme (SC) 1162 5 EYI/,J CRLP No.3104 2023

7. In view of the rival submissions made by both the parties, this Court has perused the material evidence available on record. As per the averments of the complaint, the petitioner, who is sister-in-law of the victim, despite taking amounts from the victim towards formalities, harassed the victim physically and mentally and threatened her with dire consequences. It is pertinent to note that except the above bald allegation, there a-re no specific allegations against the petitioner and she was charged with harassment without any specific evidence showing her involvement arrd she is no way concerned with the matrimonia,l disputes between accused No.1 and the victim.

8. For better appreciation of the facts of the case, it is relevant to note that while dealing with matters arising out of similar circumstances, the Apex Court 1n the judgments of Neelu Chopra (Supra 7), I !- 6 EW,J CRLP No.3104 2023 Geetha Mehrotra (Supra 2) and Dara ll,o,kshrni Naragana (Supra 3,f, categorically held that so far as in the matrimonial disputes are concernerl misuse of legal provisions cannot be continued in the absence of specilic allegation.

9. In the instant case, pima facie, it is apparent that except omnibus allegations, there are no specific allegations against the petitioner. Further, there is incriminating evidence to prove the alleged offences. Hence, this Court, having respectful agreement with the decision of the Apex Court in the a-foresaid judgments and a_lso consider::ng the peculiar facts and circumstances, is of the considered opinion that even though the trial is conducted, no purpose would be served- as there are no specific allegations against the petitioner I A,4. 1O. Accordingly, the Criminat Petition isr allowed Consequently, the proceedings against the 7 EryJ CRLP No.3104 2023 petitioner/A4 in C.C.No.2563 of 2022 perrding on the {ile of learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (for Prohibition & Excise), Nalgonda, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A,'504, 509 r/w 34 of Indian Pena-l Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL EPUTY REGISTRAR I I SECTION OFFICER The Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (for Pro ibition & Excise), Nalgonda. \ I To, 1

2. The Station House Officer, Nalgonda Women Police Station' Nalgonda' 3. One CC to Sri. More Shashi Kiran, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri. Pranay Sohini, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana' Hyderabad [OUT] 6. Two CD CoPies. M,. PSI(gh HIGH Court DATED:0510312025 'it\E !: ( ;q k 06JUN M o * oEspn r 3H C,P .[+ t ORDER CRLP.No.3104 of 2023 ALLOWD THE CRIMINAL PETITION 4 b \b '?5