The High Court · 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 Quash the Charge Sheet in C.C No. 141gt2O2S dt.Z4-01-2OZs pending before the Hon'ble Court. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 482 ol Cr.P .C praying that n the circumstances stated in the Mernorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings including pe sonal appearance of the Petitioners/Ar;cused No 2,3,4,5 and 6 in Charge Sheet in C.C. No. '1419 of 2025 On the file of the xv. Addl. Chief metropolitan magi;trate, at Hyderabad, offencgs punishable under Sections 498-A 406, 506 IPC i:nd Sections 3(1), 4, and 6(2) of the l)owry Prohibition Act, 196'1 , Pending dis losal of the Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argurnents of Sri Syed Hashim Adil, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy Learned Additonal Public Prosecutor the Assistant Public Prosecutor ITG/AP) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri M.A. Qavi Abbasi, Advocat,-. for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following Order:- THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4553 of 2o25 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short the BNSSJ seeking to quash the proceedings against the pe titioners / accused Nos.2 to 6 in C.C.No. 1419 of 2025 on the file of the learned XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPCJ and Sections 3(1), 4 and 6(2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, 'DP Act').

2. The brief facts of the case are that the de-facto complainant lodged a complaint on 23.12.2024, stating that her marriage with Mohammed Emad Ullah Sayeed (Al) took place on 27.01.2024 at Hyderabad. At the time of marriage, her parents gave Rs.5,OO,00O/- as Jode Ki Rakham and provided Jahez articles, including gold jewellery, refrigerator, cooler, furniture, sofa set, and other electrical appliances. They also gifted her seven gold rings (two sovereigns), half a -1 I 2 SKS,J Cr I.I,.No.4553 of 2O25 sovereign g()ld ear tops, and a five sovereign protd necklace, totaling seven and a half sovereigns of gold, whir:l-L wcre in the custody ,rf her husband and in-laws. Aftenrarrizrge, she began li,zing at her husband's house in Nr:u' Malakpet, Hyderabad, along with his parents, two brother s in-law, and two sisters-in law. From the hrst night, her huslrernd allegedly harassed her, and they lived together for only 12 rlays before he left for C)anada. After his departure, her in-lrru,s allegedly subjected hcr to physical and mental harassnr :rn t, beat her over petq, issues, and restricted her communi<:atjon with her parents. They eventually sent her back to her E,rr-cntal home on 18.07.20'24. Though she expressed her wish c return, her in-laws allegedly demanded additional dowry. On 15.1O.2024, all the pr:titioners allegedly came to her parent s' house and demandecl Rs.25,OO,000/- as additional dowry.

3. Basing on the said complaint, the Police reg sr.ercd a case in Crime No. 174 of 2024 for the offence puni:; Erable under Sections tt98-A, 406 and 5O6 of IPC and Sectiol:; 3(l), 4 and 6(21 of DF Act and after completion of investigati:rn, they hled the chargr: sheet, uide C.C.No.1419 of 2025, befctre thc Iearned the learnt:d XV Additional Chief Metropolitan I'{:tgistrate at 3 srtsrJ Crl.P.No-4553 of 2025 Hyderabad. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed the present criminal petition to quash the proceeding against them

4. Heard Sri Syed Hashim Adil, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.l-State and Sri M.A. Qavi Abbasi, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

5. learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the alleged offences and further submitted that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are the parents of accused No. 1, and petitioner No.2, aged 75 years, is suffering from chronic ailments including arthritis, diabetes, and hypertension and that petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are the younger brothers of accused No.l and are currently pursuing their education. Petitioner No.5 is the younger sister of accused No.l, and she has been wrongly implicated in the case despite having no involvement whatsoever in the matrimonial dispute.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the de-facto complainant had voluntarily left the matrimonial home l !- \'---.-l SKS,J Cr .P No.4553 of 2025 on 27 .O'; .2024 and subsequently initiated I rlse criminal proceedings against the petitioners and that pri( r'to hling the complaint-, the de-facto complainant had issuerl :r legal notice demandirLg Rs-50,O0,0OO/-, which indicates ;r mala ftde intention and that the allegations made do not ( )nstitute anv cognizabl,: offence as per the contents of the FIR rLnd that the petitioners have no role in the alleged acts. ['irercfore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners by allowing this criminal petition.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for rt:spondent no.2 submittec that serious allegations have been [c,icled against the petiti,rners and that accused No.l had lef t ior Canada, abandonir-rg his wife at the matrimonial home, wht:re she was compelled to reside with accused Nos.2 to 6 ,rnd that the abandonnrent was done at the instigation of accr,rscd No. I and that the rrllegations made by Lhe de-facto comp. lzrinzrnt raise substantial rssues that require adjudication lhr-ough proper legal procr:edings and prayed the Court to dismiss, t.he criminai petition. i 5 sKs,J Crl.P.Ito.4553 of 2O25

8. In view of the submissions made by both the learned counsei and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is observed that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are the parents of accused No. 1 and that there were strained relations between them and the d.e-facto complainant. The de-facto complainant has placed on record WhatsApp chat transcripts between herself and other family members, which indicate ongoing communication. Notably, the chat dated 2O.O7.2O24 reflects cordial interactions between the parties, contradicting the complainant's assertion that she left the matrimonial home on

18.O7.2024. Furthermore, the allegations against the petitioners are vague and lack specificity. Apart from general and ambiguous claims regarding the demand for additional dowry, no concrete or direct accusations have been made against them. In the absence of specihc and substantiated allegations, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but an abuse of process of law and the same are liable to be quashed. I . Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No. 1419 of 2025 on I I 6 SKS,J CrLP.Uo.4553 of 2O25 the hle ,rl the learned XV Additional Chiel lv{et ropolitan Magistratr: at Hyderabad, arc hereby quashed. Misr;ellaneous applications, if any pendinq. shall also stand closed SD/. AHMED ABDULLA KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, \ .t

1. The XVAdclitional Chief tt/letropolitan Magistrate, Hyderiibad 2. The Station House Officer, WPS South Zone (HyderabaJ) P.S., Hyderabad 3. Two CCs tc the Public Prosecutor, High Court for State )f Telangana, Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to rSri Syed Hashim Adil, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri M.V, Qavi Abbasi, Advocate IOPUCI 6. Two CD Copies VC/PSLI HIGH COURT DATED:1 1108t2025 ORDER CRLP.No.4553 of 2025 ', l-t,i ffP 7 \: ALLOWING THE CRLP q./