The High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana, Represented by the Public prosecutor High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad

2. Smt. Fatima lvlaqbool, D/O. MohdMaqbool Khan Aged. 32 Years, Occ. Housewife, R/O. H.No.16-8 -424, Kaladera New Malakpet, Hyderabad, Telangana State, Pin Code.500 024. ..RESPONDENTS 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 petitioner/Accused No 'l ,2 and 4 in C.C. No, BB47 OF 2024 on the file of XV ADDL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE HYDERABAD against the petitioners l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 Petition under Section 359(6) of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner/respondent No.2 to compound the offences with the respondents/petitioners/ A.1 , A-2 & A.4 herein by allowing the criminal Petition filed by the petitioners against C.C. No, 8A47 OF 2O24 on the file of XV ADDL CHIEF JUOICINI MAGISTRATE HYDERABAD l.A. NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 359(2) of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Me.norandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit le petitioner/de-facto complainant to :ompromise the case with the petitioners/accused No, A.1 , A.2 and A.4, and prc,ceedings against the petitioners/accused no.A.1 , A.2 & A.4 may be quashed ir C.C. No. BB47 OF 2024 on the file XV ADDL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE IYDERABAD This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the lVlemorandum of Grounds of Crirninal Petition and upon hearing the argun ents of Sri C D S B VENKATA RAO, Advocate for the Petitioners and E.GANi:SH Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No-1 and of Ncne Appeared for the Respondent No.2l The Court made the following: ORDER w 1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.5439 OF 2025 ORDER: The present . Criminal Petition is filed by petitioners/ acclrsed Nos.1, 2 arld 4 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.8847 of 2024 on the file of 'the learned XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad (for short, "the trial Court") for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 of I.P.C and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Heard Mr.C.D.S.B, Venkata Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 1-State.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 04 'O5 '2024 respondent No.2/complainant, filed a complaint against the petitioners herein stating that her marriage with petitioner No' 1 was performed on 24.1O.2O2I at MN Function Palace, Kurmaguda, Sayeedabad Road, Hyderabad as per Muslim customs and rites and at the time of marriage, parents of resp&ndent No.2 presented 15 tulas of gold jewe11ery, 30 tulas of L Z silver jeu,eilery and standard Jahez articles and agreed to give house plot as per the demand of accused. After the marriage, respondent No.2 joined the society of the acc'rsed. Respondent No.2 ancl accused No.1 lived happily for few days. Thereafter, accused started harassing respondent No.2. During the wed 1ock, on Ol.OB.2O22 she gave birth to a femrrle child. Accused Nos.l to 3 are used to harass respondent {o.2 for additional dowry. Ctn O4-O4.2024, on the issue of additional dowry, accused Nos.1 to 3 picked up a quarrel vvith resltondent No.l and assaulted her by slapping on her face. Unable to bear the harassmt:nt of the accused, respondent No.2 v,ent to her parents' house. Basing on the said facts, the present ct'ime is.registered.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.2 approached petitioner No.1 and requested for Khula and accepting her request and on O2.O4.2025, re;pondent No.2 has taken Khula. Therefore, the allegations lade against the petitioners would not withstald the scrutiny of lau, and seeks to allow this Criminal Petition.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the l matter requires to be tried and only upon ccnclusion of a full- { 3 fledged trial, the truth comes to light. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss this Criminal Petition. I I I

4... 6. Having regard to the submissions of both the learned counsel and relying on the decisions passed . by the Hon'ble , I Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Othersr, Dara Lakshmi Narayana and Others Vs. State of Telangana and another2 and Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another3, this Court is of the opinion that general allegations are leveled against the petitioners herein and no specific and distinct allegations are made out against them. In the absence . of any specific role attributed to the petitioners herein it would be unjust if they are forced to go through the tribulations of the trial. Therefore, this Court is inclined to allow the Criminal Petition by quashing the proceedings in so far as the petitioners / accused Nos.1 to 3 are concerned, in C.C.No.8B47 of 2024 on the file of the learned XV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad. t 2022 LawSuit (SC) 149 ' 2024 scc onl-lne SC 3682 ' lzotzl s s.c.R. 641 4 7 . Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allor,r ed Mis<:ellaleous Petitions, pending if any, s--rall st-and closed. \ I To, //TRUE COPY// Sd. S LLIKARJUNA RAO S ANT REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER

1. The XV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Hyderabad. Hyderabad District 2. The Station House Officer, WPS South East Zone, Hyderabad District 3. One CC to SRI C D S B VENKATA RAO Advocate [OPTJC] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD C.opies oA vM/gh f #- ( - l'-*, oi'- 17 sEP 2t]25 -) ll-) \. .., -., \- a, ,- ' a- t_ ,r, -r,t . -- "l-' ,-,t'' ./ HIGH COURT DATED: 0110512025 ORDER CRLP.No.5439 of 2025 I I I I ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION g 0 L P ?) €