Hyderabad High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lt/emorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to QUASH the C C.No, 1786 of 2019 on the file of the XXI [/etropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Medchal l.A. NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under section 482 of Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the tvlemorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition,the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in c.c.No. 1786 of 2019 on the file of the Hon,ble XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, cyberabad at Medchal including appearance of the petitioner, pending disposal of the criminal pettion This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P vIsHNUVARDHANA REDDY ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent Nol and none appear for the Respondent No2. The Court made the following: ORDER ]i ! j l w THE HONOURABLE SRI JT,ISTICE J. SRET, iIIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 381 8of2)21 ORDER: This Crirninal Petition has been filed under li ction 48r ol the Code of Clriminal Procedure, l973,by the petitioncri r :cused seeking t.o quaslr the proceedings in C.C.No. 1786 of 2Ol9 on r: hle of the XXI Mctlopolitan \lagistrare Cyberabad at Medchal. br the of fenccs pLrnishable under Sections 506 and 507 olthe Indian ,enal Codc. lg60 (lirr short, 'thc IPC'). 2 When the rnatter was taken up 1br hearing on 15.10.2025, thcrc was no lepresentation on behall- of'rcspondent No.2. rither. in plrt,sioal rn.dc or 'irtual urode. To gi'c one rnore opporluni., the maiter *,as posted to 28. 10.1025. On 28.10.2025 also, there wa: ro representarion on bchall of rt-spondcnt No.2, either in physical mode or 'irtual ,roclc. 'l-o qive one nio'e fi,al opporlunity to respondent Nc. r. the matter rvas posted to 04.11.2025 under the caption .for orders, In spite of the matter being listed under the caption ,for orders,, tod I , also there is no representation on behall of respondent No.2, either in rhysical nrode or 2 virtual mode. Hence, this Court has no option except to proceed with the matter on merits.

3. Heard Mr. P.Vishnuvardhana Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 State

4. 'l'he case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 21.t2.2018, the de-facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that her ex-husband i.e., thc petitioncr has been harassing her and hel daughtcr, and her parcnls lollowing their divorce on 03.09.2017, which took place in Australia. After the divorce, the petitioner continuously issued lile threats to the complainant and her flamily, causing thern severe distress She lurther stated that she and her daughter came to India on I 1.12.2018, but the petitioner continued to threaten them. On

13. 12.20 1 8, he allegedly warned that he would file a criminal complaint against them and threatened her f-amily with dire consequences. Hence, the present complaint has been lodged.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint and the charge sheet, the petitioner neither harassed nor 3 thtcatened respondent No.2, and the ingredients of I ections 506 and 507 of the IPC are not attracted. Hc further submits 1 tat the petitioner and respondent No.2 obtained a decree of divorce orr 03.09.2017 lrom the Australian F-arnily Courl (Parramatta Famill, 3ourt), Sydney, Australia, vide Case No. PAC 2180 of 2018. In tlie application filed bcfore the Australian Cour1, respondent No.2 h,r self specifically rnentioned that the child livcs alternately betw.een _l e petitioner and respondent No.2. Whcn respondent No.2 violate,I the terms and conditions of the dcclee ol divorce and did not perm.r the petitioner to have custody of the child, the peririoner filed G.W.O.., No.267 of 2019 under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. Aggrie., d by the orders passed by the lcarned Additional Family Court, H1 lerabad, in l.A No.634 of 2019 in G.W.O.P. No.267 of 2019, the petit oner approached this Court by tiling F.C.A. No.225 of 2019, wherein .l is Courl granted interin.r stay and directed respondent No.2 not to remo. e the child from Hyderabad during the pendency ofthe said case

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further s rbmits that the petitioner has also approached this Court by filing \\ ,p. No.26266 of 20 19, seeking a writ of habeas corpus directing respo Ldent Nos. 1 to 4 -jr"-"\,, 4 therein to produce the minor child. While the above disputes were pending between the petitioner and respondent No.2, respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint with t-alse allegations. He vehemently contends that, as on the date of the alleged offences, the petitioner was in Ausrralia, and that respondent No.2, with an intention to harass thc petitioner, falscly implicated him in the present CASE Hence, the ingredients of Sections 506 and 507 of the Indian Pcnal Code are not made ou1, and the continuation of the proceedings against tlte petitioncr. alnounts to clear abuse of the process of law

7. Pel contra. the leamed Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that respondent No.2 has madc specific allegations against the petitioner. stating that he threatened her and her family rnembers with dirc consequences. [Jowever, the ingredients of the ollences punishable under Sections 506 and 507 of the IPC are not attracted against thc petitioner. The Investigating Officer, after conducting a detailed investigation, filed the final report. The grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact, which are required to be adjudicated and decided by the trial Court after a full- 5 fledged trial. Hence, the petitioner is not entitied to stt k quashing of the proceedings on the basis of the aloresaid contentions

8. Having considered the rival submissions madt: by the respcctive parties and upon perusal of the material available orr record, it reveals that the petitioner and respondcnt No.2 are l.rusbir d and wife, and matrimonial disputes arose between them. The parlie ; rbtained a decree of divorce fiom the Australian Family Court (Parram r ta Family Court),, Sydney, Australia, in Case No. PAC 2180 of 201E, tated $.09.2017. The record further discloses that the petitioner filed l.W.O.P. No.267 of 2019 on the file of the learned Additional Family ( lourt, Hyderabad. In the said O.P., the petitioner filed an application r i te I.A. No.634 of 20 l9 seeking custody of the minor chitd, which r .as dismissed on

23.10.2019. Aggrieved by the said order, the petili rner filed F.C.A No.225 of 2019 betbre this Court and also filed W.P. .1o.26266 of 2019 seeking a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 4 thert: .r to produce the minor child before this Court. This Court, by a comr( n judgment dated

23.06.2023, dismissed the above cases, directing t re trial Court to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, ar I further directed both partieqlorooperate with the Court for early disl; rsal of the matter. 6 According to the leamed counsel for the petitioner, G.W.O.P. No.267 ol 2019 is still pending before the trial Courl

9. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the issue relating to the entitlement of custody of the child between the parties has to be adjudicated by the trial Court in the pending G.W.O.P. No.267 of 2019 As stated supra, there are no specific allegations leveled against the petitioner so as to attract the ingredients of Sections 506 and 507 of the IPC.

10. It is perlinent to mcntion that the law governing the exercise ol inherent powers under Scction 482 Cr.P.C. or thb extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Afticle 226 is well settled by the decision in Statc of Haryana v Bhajan Lal I wherein the Hon'ble Apex Courl illustrativcly catalogued categories of cases wananting quashment, such as when the allegations taken at face value do not constitute an offence, are absurd or inherently improbable, are actuated by mala fides, or where continuance of proceedings would amount to abuse of process, while cautioning that such power must be sparingly invoked to secure the ends ofjustice ' tgszstLpp (1) SCC 335 \ 7 1 1. For the foregoing reasons and the pec .rliar facts and circumstances of the case as well as the principles aid down by the Hon'ble Apex Courl in Bhajan Lal's case (supra), tl is Court is of the considered opinion that it is a llt case to invoke ne provisions of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings agai;r t the petitioner

12. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed. -['he proceedings against the petitioner/acc used in C.C.No. 1786 o12019 on the file of the XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Merl hal. are herebv quashed closed. \ To, Miscellaneous applications, petrding i, any, shall stand \i,JAWAHAR REDDY ASSI ;TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The Xll [\tl.m ,Cyberabad at Medchal 2. One CC to SRl. P VISHNUVARDHANA REDDY Advocz le [OPUC] 3. Two CC to SRl. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR High court fo' he state of Telangana at HYderbad [OUT]

4. Two CD CoPies HIGH COURT DATED:0411112025 I I 1f'la .s r Y D r.) 22 0Er lllS \ '--l - ,-___ - ,. 'i :/ ORDER CRLP.No.3818 of 2021 CRLP IS ALLOWED 1o