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 Proceedings against the petitioners herein in C.C.No. 61 of 2024 on the file of the I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- lX Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate,Kukatpally, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District. l.A. NO: 2 OF 202s 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 of all further proceedings including dispense the presence of the petitioners in C.C.No. 61 of 2024 on the file of the I Addl. Junior Civil Judge- cum- lX Addl.Metropolitan Magistrate,Kukatpally, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri DANTU VENKATA RAMANA SARMA ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Ms. Madhavi Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and 2 and Sri B. Balaji Advocate for the Respondent No. 3. The Court made the following: ORDER 'i I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL ORDER: 5 This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners - ,A.2 to ,4.4 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.61 of 2024 on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge - cum - IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad, Rangareddy District.

2. The facts of the case as stated in brief are that a complaint dated

18.08.2023 at 16:30 hours has been registered on the file of Inspector of Police, WPS IT Corridor, Cyberabad, stating that complainant's marriage was solemnized with A1. At the time of.her marriage, her parents had given 54 tulas of gold, 4.5 kgs silver and Rs.35 lacks to the parents as dowry. After their marriage held on 22.11.2021, they went to Ahmedabad and lived there separately. It is further submitted that prior to their marriage, A1 was in relation with one Sonam Jitharval and was not interested marriage with the de facto complainant. It is further stated that A1 used to beat her, choke her neck and harass her physicatly and mentally and used to abuse her in filthy language and demanded an additional dowry of Rs.20 lakhs from her husband. It is further alleged that petitioners herein (A2 and A3), the parents of A1; and A4, his paternal uncle) also demanded additional dowry and threatened that she would otherwise be divorced. \\ , , \ t i)r\ i .i ''! 2 Several panchayats were held, but the behavior of A1 did not change. Therefore, the de facto complainant lodged a complaint against A1 to F,4.

3. Basing on the said complaint, FIR No.89 of 2023 was registered on 18.08.2023 for the offences under Sections 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent Nos.1 and 2 - State and Mr. B.Balaji, learned Amicus Curiae, appointed to respondent No.3 - de facto complainant.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that at no point of time, the alleged allegations against the petitioners take place within Hyderabad, nor was the marriage between A1 and the de facto complainant solemnized at Hyderabad, except the fact that the de facto complainant belongs to Hyderabad. The complaint was filed before the Police Station, Gachibowli, WPS-IT Corridor, Cyberabad, a1rd the same was registered as Crime No.B9 of 2023 dated

18.08.2023. After investigation, the respondent potice filed charge sheet on 09. lO.2O2g uid.echarge sheet No.96 of 2023 on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge cum IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad, for the offences under Sections 498-A, 42o,323,504 and 506 of IPC and Section 4 of / / .i:'\ i' 3 Dowry Prohibition Act. It is further submitted that none 'of the ingredients of the offences alleged are made out against the petitioners, and the allegations levelled are wholly bald and vague in nature. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners arrayed as accused Nos.2 to 4 have never resided with A 1 and t}:'e de facto complainant during the subsistence of their marriage. It is further submitted that A1 is the son of petitioner Nos.2 and 3. A4 is the paternal uncle of A1. It is further submitted that neither marriage took place in Hyderabad nor do the allegations in the complaint disclose that any act constituting the alleged offences occurred at Hyderabad. Therefore, the registration of the complaint by the respondent Police, without any application of mind and in the absence of territorial jurisdiction, is unsustainable, as no part of the cause of action within the jurisdiction of learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge - cum - IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad. It is further submitted that on a bare perusal of the complaint or charge sheet, no where it is stated ttrat the petitioners resided or lived with A1 and the de focto complainant. The entire allegations are exclusively against A1. Except the allegation that A1 is in relationship with one Ms.Sonarn Jithirwal at Ahmedabad, where A1 stated to be working as a Scientist in ISRO at Ahmedabad, no material whatsoever has been collector to show any dowry demand or cruelty attributable to the petitioners herein. All the witnesses cited in charge sheet i.e. LWs.1 to 9' are ! t I 4 interested witnesses, except Lw.4, who is cited as circumstantial evidence. The statement of LW.4 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. merely states that he was informed by the parents of the de facto complainant that A1 was harassing her, pursuant to which a panchayat was conducted at the residence of A1's grandmother, wherein A1 alleged agreed to take care of the de facto complainant. His statement further indicates that LWs.2 and 3 informed him that Al continued to harass t}:e de facto complainant mentally and physically and used abusive language and that despite conducting three panchayats, Al's behavior remained unchanged. Except these statements, no specific or direct allegation has been made against the petitioners, and their names do not figure anywhere in the said statement of LW.4. Hence, in the absence of any specific, direct or substantive allegation against the petitioners, subjecting the petitioners for further course of trial would amount to abuse of process of law and undergoing long stretch of trial by the petitioners for no fault of them, would ultimately cause physical harassment and mental agony to the petitioners and he further relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Geeta Mehrotra v. State of uttar Pradeshl, Kahkashan Kausar v. state of Bihar2 and Dara Laxmi Narayans v, State of Andhra Pradeshs and submitted the case in hand is squarely covered by the judgments passed. by the L QOL2) 10 SCC 741 'z (2022]'6 SCC 599 3 (2O0s) 9 SCC 573 , / \ .{ /\-- -. t_.- t 1 r-'\ 5 Honble Apex Court in the above cases and accordingly seeks to quash the proceedings against the petitioners - A2 to A4 and also submitted that the proceedings before the trial court are yet to be commenced.

6. Learned Amicus Curiae in the absence of de facto complainant opposing the same submitted that unless and r.rntil the trial has been conducted, truth cannot be elicited. Therefore, indulgence of this Court at this stage is not warranted. Section 498-A reads as follows: Section 498-A - Husband or relatlae of husband of d womdn subJectlng her to cnteltg Whoeuer, being the husband or the relatiue of tLrc husband. of a womar4 subject such woman to crueltg shall be punished with imprisonment for a tenn which may ertent of three years and shall also be liable to fine." Explanation: For the purpose of this Section, "cruelty" mearls:

1.Any willful conduct tltat is likelg to driue t?w uloman to suicide or cause graue injury or danger to her life, timb or lrcalth (whether mental or physical).

2.Harassment uith a uiew to coerce lrcr or lrcr relatiues to meet any unlawful demandfor propertg or ua"luable sea"ritg." It is under these circumstances that mental harassment caused by A1 along with the petitioners - A2 to A4 can only be examined only after conducting thorough examination and further truth would be elicited and accordingly seeks to dismiss the criminal petition.

7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, while adopting the submissions advanced by learned Amicus Curiae, further submitted that investigation has been duly and thoroughly conducted by the respondent - police and a charge sheet has been filed under Section \ 6 () L73 cr-P.c., which has been taken on file as c.c.No.96 of 2o2s, dated 09.10.2023, on the file of learned I Additional Junior Civit Judge - cum - IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad. It is further submitted that witnesses were examined during investigation and their statements under Section 161 Cr.p.C. have been recorded. Therefore, at this.stage, the indulgence of this Court is not warranted and prays for dismissal of the criminal petition.

8. This Court having heard learned. counsel for the petitioner, learned Amicus Curiae and learned Assistant Public prosecutor and on perusing the material before this Court and on careful examination of the sarne, it is seized of the fact that none of the statements recorded under section 161 cr.p.c.by the LWs.1 to 5 whisper any harassment made out by the petitioners herein to the d.e facto complainant. Their narnes have not been specifically mentioned in their 161 cr-P.c. statements. Leaving that apart, the nature of harassment caused to tlne de facto complainant is also absent in the 161 Cr.P.C. statements recorded by the list of witnesses i.e. LWs.1 to 5. In the absence of which, expectation of conducting trial against the petitioners by conducting examination and cross-examination to elicit the truth at no stretch of imagination can be assumed that some other truth will be elicited during the course of trial in the absence of making allegations against the petitioners by the d.e factocomplainant and well as the witnesses arrayed in the charge sheet. Hence, under f / 7 these circumstances, subjecting the petitioners to further course of trial would amount to abuse of process of law.

9. Accordingly, this Court by relying upon the judgments passed by the Honble Apex Court in Dara Laxmi Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh (cited supra), Geeta Mehrotra v. State of Uttar Pradesh f I (cited supra) & Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar (cited supra), wherein the Honble Apex Court categorically held that in the absence of specific and direct allegations, against relatives, quashing the proceedings is justified, especially when the allegations are vague and omnibus. As such, subjecting the accused as against the omnibus allegations, bold and bald allegations under Section 498-A and subsequent sections lodged against the petitioners, would amount to abuse of process of law and hence in the absence of any cogent evidence as against the petitioners, subjecting the petitioners to undergo trial would amount to abuse of process of law. Apart from that, it would amount to waste of precious judicious time of the learned trial court. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the proceedings against the petitioners - A2 to A4 in C.C.No.61 of 2024 on the file of learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge - cum - IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad, Rangareddy District and so far as the proceedings against A1 1S concerned, the trial court is directed to expedite and conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible. I .'

10. With the above observations, the criminal petition is allowed. 8 f -\i As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications if any pending, in this petition, shall stand closed. \ /TRUE COPY// ( Sd/. P.C. SULEKHA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFF!CER To,

1. The I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- lX Addl.Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District.

2. The Station House Officer, W.P.S. l.T. Corridor, Gachibowli Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District.

3. One CC to SRl. DANTU VENKATA RAMANA SARMA, Advocate IOPUC] 4. One CC to SRl. B. BALAJI, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two Copies to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

6. Two CD Copies c) HIGH COURT DATED: 1411112025 f T .s s * q3 * ll:, tJ. n ORDER CRLP.No.3971 ot 2025 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION I