The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 5Zg of ANSS Act, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.70 of 2021 on the fitb of the I Additional Judicial First class Magistrate at Nizamabad against the petitioners, in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section 528 of BNSS Act, 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 including the appearance of the petitioners in c.c.No.70 of 2021 on the file of the I Additional .ludicial First class Magistrate at Nizamabad This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr ABHILASH SONTAKE, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr VIVEKAI{ANDA REbDy, the Assistant Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Responrient No.1 and None appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PEIITION No. 42a6 of2O25 ORDER: This Criminal petition is filed under Section 52g of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short .the BNSS) seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.70 of 2O2l on the file of learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate at Nizamabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-4 of the Indian penal Code, lg6o (for short, 'IPCJ and Section 4 of Dowry prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, 'DP ActJ.

2. The brief facts of the case are that 2O.lO.2Ol9, tlre de_ facto complainant lodged a report before the police stating that her marriage was solemniz ed on 12.02.2016 with accused No.1. At the time of the marriage, her husband and in_laws accepted dowry amounting to Rs.2,OO,1l l/-, 15 tulas of gold ornaments, 2 kilograms of silver ornaments, household articles worth approximately Rs. 1,0O,OOO/-, and clothing valued ar Rs.6O,OO0/-, all from hcr parents. Additionally, her parents spent around Rs. 15,OO,OOO/- towards marriage expenses. 2 sl(s,J Crl.P.No.4286 of 2025 Immediately after the marriage, she joined L,er husbald in matrimonial 1ife. Her husband is employed zrs a lecturer at Mallareddy Institute of Engineering an I Technolory, Mysammaguda, Hyderabad. They lived peacefully for about three months. Thereafter, her husband began abusing her with vulgar language and demanded Rs. 10,00,0{)0,i - from her parents. He pressured both her and her parerlts to purchase the apartment in which they were residing. To meet his demand, her parents mortgaged their house with LIC Housing Finance Ltd., Nizamabad, received a sanctioned lrrount, and on

06.06.2016 credited Rs.14,50,O0O/-, which was hzrnded over to her husband. Subsequently, her husband took arx'ay her credit card and withdrew her salary amounting to Rs.8 /,2OO/- without her consent, with criminal intent. When she questioned him about this, he physically assaulted her, abused her with lrrlgar language, and issued dire threats, allegedly provoked and abetted by her inJaws as well as her husband's siblings. They never treated her as a family member.

3. Despite several attempts at mediation by elders, her husband only paid approximately 17 EMIs of the I-IC loan, out of which Rs.10,00,OOO/- had been taken from her mother. The SKS,J Crl.P.No.4286 of 2O2s remarnrng amount remains unpaid despite repeated requests. Further, under the influence and instigation of his family members, he hled FCOP No. 897 of 2OtZ under Section 13(t)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, allegedly to avoid his responsibility for her maintenance and to evade repayment of the money taken from her moth6r. On I I .0 1 .2O 17, her husband and in-laws physically assaulted her and threw her out of the house, issuing a strict warning to bring an additional dowry of Rs. 1O,0O,OOO/-, failing which they threatened to kill her and her parents. On

15.09.2019, when she appeared in the above FCOp proceedings before the Family Court, she was again threatened and verbally abused by the accused outside the court premises, and was coerced into agreeing to a mutual divorce.

4. Based on the said complaint, the police registered a case in Crime No.79 of 2Ol9 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Secrion 4 of the Dp Act and after completion of investigation, they filed the charge sheet, uid.e C.C.No.7O of 2027, before the learned I Additiona_l Judicial First Class Magistrate at Nizamabad. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed the present criminal petition to quash the proceeding against them. 4 sl{s,J Orl.P.No.4286 of 2025

5. Heard Ms. Devara Samhitha, lea-nr:d counsel representing on behalf of Sri Abhilash Sontake, learncd counsel on record for the petitioners and Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1-State. Though notice is served on respondent No.2, none appeared on her behalf.

6. karned counsel for the petitioners submitted that accused No.1 had earlier hled F.C.O.P. No.897 ol 2OI7 seeking dissolution of marriage and a decree of divorce. By order dated

17.12.2021, the Family Court dissolved the marri;rge between accused No.1 and respondent No.2 and grante d a decree of divorce. Subsequently, respondent No.2 filed D.V.C. No.66 of 2019, which was amicably settled before the Lok Adalat Bench at Nizamabad on 17.O2.2O22. Thereafter, she instituted M.C. No.43 of 2O19 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance against the accused. However, by l clocket order dated 21.1O.2022, the said maintenance case war; dismissed for default due to respgndent No.2's failure to app3ar before the Court and that even at present, there is no repre sentation from her side seeking continuation of the proceedings and further submitted that the maintenance claim appears to have been 5 sxs,J Crl.P.No,42E6 of2025 filed solely with the intent to harass the petitioners, ald that the allegations contained therein constitute a clear abuse of the legal process. Furthermore, it was contended that there are no specific or substaltiated allegations made against the petitioners and there are no specific allegations leveled against them. Therefore, prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners by allowing this criminal petition.

4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that several cases have been hied belween the petitioners and the de-facto complainant. He stated that no speciflc allegations have been made against the petitioners in the present complaint and further submitted that the disputes between the accused and the de-facto complainant appear to have been settled amicably, and prayed the Court to pass appropriate orders. g. In view of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the offences alleged against the petitioners pertain to Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act. I I I t However, specific and substantiated allegations have been made only against accused No.1. As regards the petitioners, there are 6 sKs,J (:rl.r'-No.4286 of 2025 a no specific allegations implicating them- Further., it is relevant to note that the Lok Adalat Bench at Nizamabad. in Lok Adalat Case No. 15 of 2022 arising from DVC No.66 of 20 19, has passed an Award whereby respondent No.2 and accuserl No l have mutually agreed not to initiate any further litirlation rvhether present or future concerning matrimonial dispures;. They have also agreed not to claim any rights over each other's movable or immovable properties, as such this Court is o[ the opinion that continuation of criminal proceedings against th' petitioners is nothing but an abuse of process of law.

9. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is al or.r'ed and the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.7O of 2O21 on the hle of learned I Additional Judicial First Class l\{aflistrate at Nizamabad, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pend ng, shall also stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. C. DEEPIKA AS:SISTANT REGI TRAR SECTI I g T OFFICER To,

1. The 1sr Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Nizamabad 2- The Station House Officer, WPS Nizamabad Police Station House Officer, Nizamabad Dist.

3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the litate of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] r\},

4. One CC to Mr. ABHILASH SONTAKE Advocate IOPU]I 5 Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED: 3110712025 ,-'-a ,.i'-\il..St.- '---::'-l .4'tlY' ,. \" '- ' ( .. :' /-) \ 03 sEP 20[ \:, , ORDER CRLP.No.4286 ot 2025 Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is Allowed @