The High Court · 2025

1. Mr. Jogjnapally _Yashasvi, D/o. Sri. Joginapally Satyanarayana Rao. Aoed aDour J5 years. Occupation. Housewife, R:/o. phot N0.25, 1sr floor, Sectorl50 Block4 Mayfietd carden Gurgaon, Hanjana lndia 122OO1b 2 The State of Telangana, Rep. State of Telanagana, Hyderabad ...Respondents/ Petitioners No.l & 2 by its Public Prosecutc r, High Court for the

3. Station House Officer, Warangal WPS, Warangal Distric: ...Respotlclents/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 Vacate the interim orders granted in ll' No. 1of 2025 in Crl.P.No.5411 of 2025 dated 221712025. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argum(rnts of Mr S MADAN MOHAN RAO, Advocate for the Petitioners and Mr' JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf cf Respondent No.1 & 2, and none appeared for the Respondent No.3. The Court made the following: ORDER i.: r') THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No-5411 ot 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (tor short 'BNSS') (for short 'BNSS') by the petitioner/accused No.4 to quash the proceedings against her in FIR No.34 of 2025 on the file of WPS Warangal, Warangal District. The offences alleged against her are under Sections 85 and 351 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS') and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'DP Act).

2. Heard Mr.S.Madan Mohan Rao, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2- State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there are no specific allegations against the petitioner herein and that the petitioner is a resident of the USA. He further submitted that the de facto complainant is the father-in-law of the petitioner's brother. The petitioner is in no way concerned with the marital 2 dispute between her brother, who is accused No. ' and his wife. He further submitted that a marital dispute aros€, between the petitioner's brother and his wife, and cases have b<lern filed in the USA between them. He, therefore, prayed tc quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has r;ttbmitted that the alleged offence occurred in the USA, as per t'te contents of the complaint, and that the only allegation against trt-' petitioner is that she instigated her brother to harass the de factrt complainant.

5. Perused the record.

6. The contents of the complaint incjicate that the petitioner herein instigated her brother to harass the de facto oomplainant. lt is pertinent to note in this regard that the allegecl incident took place in the USA, for which sanctron under Section 188 of Cr.P.C. is required. However, no such sanction has been <ttrtained in the present case. Though sanction can be obtained prirlr to the taking of cognizance, it need not be considered at ttre stage of a pending investigation. lt is pertinent to note that the alleged incidents took place in the USA, and this factual position remains unchanged even after the filing of the charge shee' rlr at the time i, I i 3 of taking cognizance. That apart, the allegations are omnibus in nature, and no specific overt act is attributed to tlte petitioner.

7. The facts of the present case are squarely covered by the judgment of Apex Court in Dara Lakshmi Nanyana v. State of Telanganal , wherein ln the said case, the respondent No.2/wife used to leave the matrimonial home uninformed and on one such occasion when she left the matrimonial house, the husband made a police complaint and when the police found her whereabouts, she was allegedly living with someone and that after being counselled, she returned to her matrimonial home. lt was further submifted that the wife addressed a letter to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirupathur Sub-Division requesting to close the complaint made by appellant No.1 wherein she admitted that she had left her matrimonial house after quarrelling with appellant No 1 because of one Govindan, with whom she,was talking over the phone for the past ten days continuously and that she would not repeat such acts in future. lt was further submitted that respondent No.2 again left the matrimonial house leaving appellant No.1 and children behind. Then the husband having no other option has issued a legal notice seeking divorce by mutual I (2025) 3 scc 7ls -] 4 o consent. Thus, as a counter blast the present [:lR was filed by respondent No.2/wife. Further, in the said case, there were no specific allegations against the appellants. ln th;rt backdrop, the Apex Court has held that when there are no spr:cific allegations against the appellants and there is admissiorr made by the respondent No.2-wife that she had left her matrimonial house after quarrelling with appellant No.1 because of one Govindan, with whom she was talking over the phone for the past ten days continuously and that she would not repeat such acts in future, the appeal was allowed and the impugned order cf the High Court was set aside and as a result, the proceedings before the trial Court were quashed.

8. ln view of the ratio laid down in Dara Lahs,hminarayana's case, in the absence of specific overt act agains,t the petitioner, the continuation of proceedings would amount to ar.r abuse of the process of law.

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is irllowed. The proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.4 in FIR No.34 of 2025 on the file of WPS Warangal, Warangal District, are hereby quashed. */ 5 Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. K.BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// \ To, Warangal. Class, Han'amakonda

1. The PrinciDal Junior Crvil Judge -cum- principal Judicial Magistrate of First 2. The Station House Officer, Warangat WpS (Warangat) police Station, 3. Two CCs to the public prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at 4. One CC to Mr. S MADAN MOHAN RAO, Advocate IOPUC] 5. Two CD Copies Hyderabad. [OUT] RC/PSL (*' HIGH COURT DATED: 0611012025 I I l I I t I I I I i j I I ORDER CRLP.No.5411 ot 2025 g I )!l! g 14 c,( 1 g? 2't tr;u a fl1r z o I /). + TarH.;O + Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is Allowed. I ,Ca &,€