The High Court · 2025

1. State of Telangana, Through WPS North Zone (Hyderabad) Rep by its Public Prosecutor High Court, HYderabad 2 Smt. Vuppala Oeepka, Wlo-e S*'1'n Aged about 35 years' Occ lT - ingin"er'nlo ptot ruo i+, Jupiter Colony' Sikn Colonv' Sikh Road' Khirkhana, Secunderabad ...RES'ONDENTS Petition under Section 528 of BNSS' 2023 praying t!a! in lhe circumstances stated in th"'lJ"'ol"Oum of Grounds of Criminal Petition' the High Court may be pf",tti"to'q""tf' tn" CC No 14990 of 2024 on the file of the xv Additional Crriet .luorliai i'r'jilt"t" at Nampally' Hyderabad against the FetitionersiAccused Nos 4 and 5 herein' l.A. NO: 10F 2025 PetitionUndersection528ofBNSS,prayingthatinthecircumstances stated in the Memorandr."oi o.rno. of cri;inal Petition. the High court may be oleased be to stay all f'd;;;;;;""aing" in C.C No 14990 of 2024 on the file IL[;*Voii,t'";;i'c;i"ii'jiiti-'i Mr'si'tote at Nampallv' Hvderabad against the F"iiiion.r. herein including appearance of the petitioners'; This Petition coming on for hearing,upon.perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal p.iition and upon hearing the arquments of sri V for. the- Petitioners and the Sri SEETHARAMA AVADHA'Nii:" A;;;;6 behalf of the Respondent M.Vivekananda neaov nssi Public Prosecutor -on 'N" i';;;.1 S;-tur nru,ino itja, Advocate for the Respondent No 2; The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K, SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.48S1 OF 2O2S ORDER: This criminal petition is filed by the petitic,ners/accused Nos.4 and 5 seeking the Court to quash the proceedings initiated against thcrr ir-r CC.No.14990 of 2024 on the frle of the XV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Nampally., Hyderabad, registered for thc offences punishable under Sections 49g_A, 323, 406, 506 read u,ith 34 of IpC, Sections 3, 4 ancl 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. The brief facts of the case of prosecution are that it revolves around a complaint hled by Respondent No. 2 against the Petitioners, who are her sister_in_law and brother_in_law, stating that she married Mr. pothemshett5r Swajan, the brother ol Petitioner No. 1, on 27 .OS.2O|S and after the marriage, she stayed with her husband in Hanamkonda, Warangal, before moving to the USA. On 3O.1O.2024, Respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint alleging that the petitioners instigated her. husband to harass her and restrict her parents, visits. Based on this complaint, an FIR was registered against the petiti.ners for the Z offences as alleged. Aggrieved thereby' this criminal petition 1s

3. Heard Sri Vij ay Bhaskar' Iearned counsel for petitioners' Sri M.Vivekanada Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State, and Sri M Aravind Teja' learned counsel for resPondent No.2' Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the 4 . complaint hled by Respondent No 2 is baseless' vexatious' and filed with malafide intentions to harass the petitioners' who are the sister-in-law and brother-in-law of Respondent No' 2's husband.HefurtherSubmittedthattheallegationsmadeagainst the petitioners are general and omnibus' without any specific roleattributedtothem,andarenotaccompaniedbyany corroborative material' He contended that the petitioners deny instigating the husband to harass Respondent No 2 or restricting her parents' visits' He asserted that the FIR does not disclosethecommissionofanyoffence,andtheallegationsare fabricated to falsely implicate the petitioners' and that the petitioners, being respectable citizens based in the USA' were not present in India during the alleged incidents and could not have participated in any harassment- While placing reliance on the 3 precedents, ht-, contended that general and omnibus allegations against relatives of the husband are not sufficient to constitute a case, and that the petitioners cannot be prosecuted without specific and credibie allegations. Therefore, he prayed this Court to allow the Criminal Petition, quashing the proceedlngs initiated against the petitioners.

5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant public Prosecutor, and learned counsel for respondent No.2. vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioners and contended that Respondent No.2 denies the allegations made by the petitioners that the complaint is baseless, vexatious, and hled with malafide intentions, instead, Respondent No. 2 alleges that the petitioners, along with her husband, harassed her for additional dowry, and specific instances of harassment have been mentioned in the complaint. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 submitted that the petitioners, involvement in the crime can be adjudicated only during the course of trial and not in the present petition. Therefore, while advocating that the matter requires full fledged trial, they prayed this Court to dismiss the Crirninal petition. 4 -,

6. Having regard to rival submissions made' and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that petitioners are accused Nos.4 and 4 who are sister-in-iaw and brother-in- law, of respondent No.2. According to respondent No'2' the specihc allegations leveled against the petitioners are that they instigated the accused No.1 to harass her and with that intention the petitioners went to the place of petitioners and created issues SoaStocauseharassmenttorespondentNo.2.However,itis noted thal except the said allegation, there are no other specific set of allegations leveled against the petitioners That apart' admittedly, the petitioners are staying in US' and the distance of accused No.1 is between their Place and the Place approximately around 2o00kms' In the they instigated the accused No.1 to complaint averments, except for stating that other allegations Even according to harass, there are no respondent No.2, after returning to India' she stayed in Bangalore ancl on the date of alleged incident' the petitioners were not in India. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the proceedings initiated against the petitioners are liable to tre quashed. IN THtr RESULT, this Criminal Petition is allowed' and the 7. proceedings initiated against the petitioners in CC'No' 14990 of 5 2024 on the file of the XV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed. Miscellareous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed 1 ! \ SD/- K.BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G i/TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The XV Additional. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nampally 2. The Station House Officer, WPS North Zone, Hyderabad City 3. One CC to SRI V SEETHARAiVA AVADHANI Advocate IOPUCI 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies VSM/PSI, HIGH COURT DATED:0910912025 /-:.1 . l_.=_._ ._: r 1 l.:l :' j ., . \'.... (.. -i 2 2 ISEP 2[6 i .' .i1 \ ORDER CRLP.No.4851 of 2025 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION )p W