The High Court · 2025

1. State Telangana, Rep by Public Prosecutor High Court, Hyderabad' 2. G. Sangeetha, Wo. G. Sairam, Age . 24 years,^Occ . Housewife, R/o' H.No.35-2814, lndiramma Nagar,Rasoolpura, Secunderabad. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS Petition under section 482 of cr.P .c praying that in the clrcumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to quash the cc. No. 285/2018 on the file of the XV Additional chief iiletropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad filed against the petitioner/Accused no 4 alleging offences U/s 498A and 406 IPC and pass. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under section 482 o1 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 the personal qppe.ar3lce of the petiiioner in the CC No. 285t2018 on the file of XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad filed against the Petitioner/Accused No.4 alleging offences U/s 4984 and 406 IPC and pass .*?iEFr!+ry ,r CRIMINAL PETITION NO:4228OF 2021 Between: G Raln! , Shantoshi, Wo. G. Praveen, Aged.36 years, Occ. Household, R/o. H.No.6-6-426/339. Chacha Nehru Nagar, Bansilalpet, Secunderabad-3. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.3 AND

1. State of Telangana and another, Rep by Public Prosecutor High Court, Hyderabad.

2. p Qqnggetha, Wo. G. Sairam, Age.24 years, Occ. Housrewife, R/o. H. No.38-2814, lndiramma Nagar, / Rasoo[pura, Secunderabad. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorarrdum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the CC No. 285/2018 on the file of XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magislrate, at Hyderabad, filed against the petitioner/Accused No.3 alleging offences U/s 49BA and 406 IPC and pass l.A. NO: 2 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 the personal appearance of the Petitioner/Accused No.3 in the cc No, 285/2018 on the f ile of XV Additional chief Metropolitan IMagistrate, at Hyderabad filed against the petitioner/Accused No.3 alleging offences U/s 4984 and 406 IPC and pass These Petitions coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitions and upon hearing the arguments of Sri C M R VELU, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri E.Ganesh, the Assistant public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMII{AL PETITION Nos.31 77 of2O2L &'422Aof2O2l COMMON ORDER: Criminal Petit-ion No.3177 of 2O2l is Iiled by the petitioner/ accused No.4. and criminal Petition No.4228 of 2O2l is filed by the petitioner/ accusr- d No.3 both under Section 482 of Cr'P'C', seeking to quash ttre proceedings against them in CC No'285 of 2018 on the hle of the iearrii:d XV ACMM, Hyderabad.

2. Heard Mrs.L'iR Savitn, learned counsel representing Sri CMR Velu, Iearncd coun:;el fcr the petitioners in both the matters ani Sri E.Ganestr, learnecl Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state/ respondent No.1. Tliough the notice was ordered, none appeared for the respondent No.2 ln both the matters.

3. Since bolh lhese criminal petitions are hled by the respective petitioners serrking 1o quash the criminal proceedings against them in the same calelrrlar case, both these criminal petitions are disposed of vide this corrt:non order.

4. CC No.285 oi 2Ol8 was registered basing on the complaint d,aLed O2.O7.2O18 lorlged by the 2"d respondent herein in FIR No 161 of 2O18 of WPS, Begumpet Police Statior-r for the offences under Sections 498(A) and 406 IPC against the petitioners and fiv'o others/accused Nos.1 to 4, who a.re the husbald of 2'd respondent and his mother, sister and parental mother respectively. 'I'he aliegar-ion levelled against the accused is that the accused, phl.sic.rlly and m,:ntally tortured the de-facto conrplainant, treated her as a holisemaid rrraking her to attend the entire hor.rsehold work, they even did not shon, mercy on her while she wai carrv-ir-rg, they even did not allorv +"he 2n,l respondent to talk with her parents and fina11y by takir-rg Rs.7,50,00C'/- and 15 Tulas of gold they necked her out of the matririroniai house during her Sth month pregreancy, after her giving birth to a boy, thc accused suspected her charact,:r stating that the said boy d(;cs not belong to the accused No.1/her husband. Even aiter con<lu.ctiriq prancha'rat and cor-rnselling also the accuscd did not change thcir tr-ttir .itle .

5. The police after registration of FIR, proceeded with the investigation, recorded the stalements of l,;Vs.1 to 5, collected material, and laid charge-sheet in thc trial Court. LW1 is the 2"d respondentT'crrmpiainant, L-Vs.2 anci -l r.. re her pilrents, LW4 is the independen., witness and LW5 is the irr'. r: stigating officer. The lrial Court took cognizance of the offenccs u'ith which the accused were charge-sheeted and proceeded further by :rssigning (lC No.285 of 2018.

6. \!'hile the proceedings be{br e 'rtrc trial Court are pending, the petitioners/A3 and A4 ltled the prest:nt criminal petitions seeking their discharge from the charges leveiled against th,:m in CC No.285 of 2018 mainlv contending that accused No.3 is the sis;ter of accused No. 1 . Page 3 of6 and accused No.4 is his maternal aunt and working as a staff Nurse in Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad and that they are iiving away from the couple, they have nothing to do with the affairs of the accused No 1 and respondent No.2, no specific allegations are levelled against the pelilioners, the entire evidence on record and Lhe recitals ol charge- sheet do not constitute any offence much less the alieged offences against the petitioners and that continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of lar' This Court vide order dated 2O.O4 2O2I in Criminal Petition No'3177 of 2O2i,lied by the accused No 4 granted stay of all further proceedings in CC No.285 of 2018 on the file of the triai Court' The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that t'he criminal justice system should not be used as a tool of harassment when the allegations are vague or do not disciose the ingredients of a criminal offence' Stating thus' learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to quash the impugned proceedings against the Petitioners

7. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the present criminal petitions mainly contending that grave allegations are 1evel1ed against the petitioners and they require fu1l-fledged trial and that quashing the impugned proceedings without letting the petitioners to face the trial will not meet the ends of - I i I I I I I { Page 4 ol6 justice. T}rus stating, he requested to dismiss the present criminal petltlon

8. Flaving heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assrstant Public Prosecutor and peiusir.rg the material on record this C,turt is seized of the fact that the allege tions made are bald in nature as no specific allegations have been made since the petitioners, being the sister and aunt of the 1"t accused/husband of the 2',d responrle.rt are li'ing away from the coupie and leading tl-reir respectivc professions and lile and in such sccrario, making them liabie for the offences under section 49g-A and 406 Ipc cannot stancl for legal scrutinv. f . in such scenario, it is pertincnt to mention that law is r,r.ell settled, as l-reld by the llonble Suprcme court in .Kahkashan Kausar Alias Sonam and others Vs. State of Bihar and othersl and Geeta Mehrotra and another vs. state of uttar pradesh and anotherz that general and omnibus allcgations do not warrant prosecution. It is settled proprl5ition of law that where the complaint c,r F.IR contains only vague, sweeping, or omnibus allegations against the accused, with no specific details, such proceedings amount to an abuse of the process of law and are liable to be quashed. Further, making ge.neral and omnibus tl2eg: '(2012) 0jc{.711 t ,, Supr.eme courr cases 599 I ! I Page 5 ol6 allegations on the reiatives of husband scars upon their reputatlon In thesocietythoughthesaidcriminaltrialendsineventualacquittal, and such an exerclse must thereforc be discouraged. In state of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal3, the Su'preme Court laid down a seminal test for quashing criminal proceeclings under Sections 482 Cr'P'C ' especialiy when the investigations or FIRs are manifestly flawed holding that where a criminal proceecling is manifestly attended with mala ltde and/or '*.herc the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ullerior motive for u,reaking vengeance on the accused and with a vieu' to spite him due to private and personal grudge the same is tiable to be quashed

10. When the case of the petitioners herein is tested on the touchstone of the above proposition of 1aw laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is of the vierv that the petitioners cannot be subjected to the tribulations of trial without there being any specific allegation against them ancl in that view of the matter' the criminal proceedings against them are liable to be quashed' I 1. ln the result, Criminal Petition Nos'3177 of 2O2l and 4228 of 2O2l are allowed quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners / accused Nos.3 and 4 in CC No 285 of 20 18 on the file of the I 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 33-5 ."? Page 6 of6 learned XV .{CMM. Hyderabad. Interlocutory al)plications, if anv pending, shall stand dismissed. SD/-MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII \^ t t \ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The XV Additional Chief Metropolitan t\/agistrate, ar Hyderabad 2- The Station House Officer, Police Station, Begumpet WPS, Hyderabad 3. One CC to SRI C M R VELU Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at 5. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] .IPKPSL \'{- HIGH COURT DATED: 1410712025 ,/- i;> .i [ ,1 0[T 2025 I -: ,r,. -'i'a/ I i I ! i l COMMON ORDER CRLP.No.31 77 of 2021 AND CRLP.N 0.4228 of ZO21 CRIMINAL PETITIONS ARE ALLOWED € rd"a v,,-ffix