The High Court · 2025

HO, Gachibowli Police Station, rosecutor, High Court of Telangana,

2. Dr. Murali Banovath, S/o Bhadraiah, Faculty Qr. No. B-17, University of Hyd Road, Gachibowli, Hyderabad 500 046 ed 35 years, Occ. Asst. Professor R/o rabad Campus, Prof. C.R. RAO Telangana. ...Respondent No.2/Complainant Respondent No.'l I Petition under Section 482 ot Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Quash the C C. No. 1484 of 2021 On the file of the Xll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Kukatpally At Prashanth Nagar, Cyberabad, R R District. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2021 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 grant stay of all further proceedings including arrest and appearance of Petitioners / Accused no. 1,3,4 and 5 in C.C. No. 1484 of 2021 On the file of Xll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Kukatpally At Prashanth Nagar, Cyberabad, R.R District Pending disposal of the main Criminal Petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing lhe l\/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P. PHALGUNA RAO, Advocate for the Petitioners and E. GANESH, the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and of Sri. Manav Kumar, learned counsel representing Mr. N Avanesh, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JI'STIC E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAI PETITION No 3320 0F 2021 ORDER: This criminal petition, unde Section 482 Cr.P.C, is liled seeking to quash the proceedings nst the petitioners/ accused Nos.l,3,4 and 5 in C.C.No.I484 of 2O2l on the file of the XII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, K katpally, Prashanth Nagar, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District, egistered for the offences punishahlle under Sections 323 and 50 of IPC 2 Heard Mr.P.Phalguna Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.E.Ganesh, learned ssistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 1-Stat and Mr.Manav Kumar, Iearned counsel representing Mr.N.Av nesh, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 3 The gravamen of the alle tions levelled against the petitioners are that the marriage of respondent No.2l de facto ed No. 1. It is alleged that complainant was performed with acc accused No. 1 used to quarrel with res ondent No.2 regularly and she used to harass him both physicall and mentally and that she also used to abuse him in a filthy lan ge in front of his students, parents and relatives and further, she sed to blackmail him that she would commit suicide. It is also leged that accused No.l is having- illicit intin;;c] with his br ther. That being so, on

27.11.2O2O, accused No. 1 threatened respondent No.2 that she I 2 would kill him with the help of his brother. Hence, on the complaint given by respondent No.2 herein, the present criminal law was set into motion.

4. The learned counse I for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they are falsely implicated in this case only to dictate the terms to the petitioners, He further submitted that there are matrimonial disputes betrveen petitioner No. 1 and respondent No.2 prior to hling of the criminai cornplaint and at the instance of the brother of petitioner No.1, only to harass the petitioners and cause hardship to them, respondent No.2 has foisted the false case against the petitioners witl'rout attributrng any specihc overt acts of the petitioners. Thercfore, prays this Court to quash proceedings pending against the petitioners.

5. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that after completion of investigation, police have laid the charge sheet and the trial is under progress an<i that thc truth or otherwise would be revealed only after fuli-fledged trial.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has argucd on the same lines of the complaint, contending that respondent No.2 was harassed by the petitioners and he has undergone mental trauma due to the acts of the petitioners. Therefore, prays this Court to dismiss this petition. t It is not disputed in the atter that petitioner No. 1 is wife of respondent No.2 and petitione Nos.2 and 3 are brother-in- laws while petitioner No.4 is sister-in- w of respondent No.2. 8 While considering the prese t matter in which offence rs registered under Sections 323 and 5 of IPC, it will be relevant to consider whether allegations raised b informant satislied the pre- requisite required under the provision of law In the present case, from

9. information report, it is clear that the allegations of the first respondent No.2 has not specifically made any allegations agai st the petitioner Nos.2 to 4. All the allegations against the family members of petitioner No. I are of vague and omnibus in natur As such, prima facie, the allegations levelled against the family members do not attract the aforesaid offences. 10 The principles laid down b the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catene of judgments that the false i plication by way of general, omnibus allegaLions made in the cour e of matrimonial disputes, if left unchecked would result in mis se of the process of law. Therefore, the Hon'ble Apex Court, way of its judgments, has warned the courts from proceeding inst the relatives and in- Iaws of the spouse when no prima fa ie case is made out against them. 4

11. In the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, this Court perused the first information report in question and found that the allegations made against petitioner No.2 to 4 are vague and general. The allegations levelled against petitioner Nos.2 to 4 do not make out the offence under Section 323 ol IPC.

12. It is clear from record that there are no allegations against petitioner Nos.2 to 4 that they have threatened with any injury to informant or his reputation, therefore, no offence is made out under Section 5O6 of the IPC against tlnem. Pima facie the allegations levelled against petitioner No.1 attracts the aforesaid offences and the truth or the otherwise would be revealed only after full-fledged trial.

13. It is also clear from the record that there arc matrimonial disputes between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2. Thereafter, it seems that to settle their personal goais against the petitioners, respondent No.2 has lodged the police report against the petitioners.

14. In the circumstances, petitioner Nos.2 to 4 cannot be allowed to be prosecuted for the offences under Sections 323 and 506 of the IPC. Therefore, continuation of criminal proceedings against petitioner Nos.2 to 4 is an abuse of process of 1aw and heqge the samq€re liable to be quashed. I I i t I i I I : I t I t I ! ! 'I 5

15. In the result, the crimin petition is partly allowed, quashing the proceedings against titioner Nos.2 to 4/accused Nos.3 to 5 herein C.C.No. 1484 of 20 1 on the hle of the Court of the XII Additional Metropolitan Magi trate, Kukatpally, Prashanth Nagar, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy Di trict. F'urther, the criminal petition as against petitioner No. 1/ cused No.l is dismissed However, the personal appearalce f petitioner No. 1/accused No.l before the tria.l Court is dispe sed with and she shall be represented by a counsel. Fur er petitioner No. I shall appear before the trial Court as d when her presence is required. Miscellaneous petitions if any, pending in this criminal petition shall stand closed. ,/TRUE CO n SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER 1

1. The Xll Additional Metropolitan Magistra Cvberabad, R.R District. The Station House Officer, Gachibowli P One CC to SRl. P. Phalguna Rao, Ad One CC to SRl. N. Avnesh, Advocate I Two CCs to Public Prosecutor' High Co Two CD CoPies. To, 2 J 4 5 6 GR/gh Kukatpally At Prashanth Nagar, lice Station, CYberabad te [oPUC] U C rt foI the Sta e o Te ansa a o rl f P U n HIGH COURT DATED:2810112025 ORDER CRLP.No.3320 ol2O21 ) '/'r't,\ ..X. \r '{{' E il6 ,. o 13 IU t)F.s p 1 c I PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION