The High Court · 2025

StateofTelangana,Rep.bythePublicProsecutor,HighCourtfortheStateof Telangana, HYderabad. Smt. S. Saraswathi, Wo. S. Rajanna, Aged 4p-ygqr.s, Occ' Housewife' Flat il;:'107, SiiB;tiii Homes, pi"t'N" 5'b,r-o and 11, Near ZP HighSchool' asavi Ll"ro..it. kuirlivj'H ills, va.anih Nagar bolony, Pragathi Nagar' Hyderabad' Stite. Telangaha, PIN code.500090. ..'ResPonJe3ts/comPlainants PetitionunderSection52BofBNSSprayingthatinthecircumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be to quasrr the proceedings in CC No 2284 of 2024' on the file of the ;i;;# Learned Xl Additional Judicial Migistrate of First Class at Kukatpally, Medchal- Malkajgiri District, in the interest of justice' l.A. NO: 1 OF 2025 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 pi""."O to stay all further proceedings in-CC No,.2284 ol 2024 on the file of the LearneO Xt Addl. Judiciai Magistra-te of First Class, at Kukatpally, Medchal- r,rrJr"iEri District, pending Jis[osat of the criminal petition, in the Interest of justice. 7 l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under section 482 of cr.p .c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar peiition, the High court may oe pleased to receive the additional material papers to the record of t-he criminal case CRLP NO 6051 ot 2025. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri r Damodar, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Syed yasar Mamoon, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.l and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER i. d: THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTTCE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6O51 of 2o25 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/ accused No'1 in C.C.No.2284 of 21024 on the ltle of the learned XI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kukatpally' Medchal- Malkajgiri District, registered for the offences punishabie under Sections 85, 351(2) read with 3(5) of BNS and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961'

2. The brief facts of the case are that the de facto complainant, worked as a labourer and with her earnings sent her daughter to America for higher studies' She p'erformed her daughter's marriage with the petitioner on 13 'O2 '2022 at Hyderabad and gave 5O tulas of gold as dowry' After one week of marriage, the petitioner started harassing her daughter for additional dowry, came home drunk, and beat her' On one such occasion, he beat her severely, due to which she returned to India' After 15 days, a panchayat was held where the parents of the petitioner and brother Kandula Pradeep I 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.605 l of 2O2s demanded further dowry, her entire salary, and a flat. On the elders' advice, the complainant agreed for the sake of her daughter and sent her back to America. The very next day, the petitioner again beat her in drunken condition, and she lodged a complaint with police. She left the house and stayed in a rented room. Out of 50 tulas gold, 40 tulas kept in bank deposit were released by family of the petitioner without the knowledge of comprainant and her daughter and used for their personal needs. When she demanded return of gold, they threatened her with dire consequences. In another panchayat, parents of the petitioner and brother accused her daughter of having a boyfriend in America, filed a false case against her son, and attacked the complainant. 3 Basing on the said complaint, the police registered a case in Crime No.76S of 2024 of Bachupally police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate and after compietion of investigation, they filed charge sheet, vide C.C.No.22g4 of 2024 before the iearned XI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kukatpally, Medchal_Malkajgiri District, for the oflences punishable under Sections gS, 351(2) read with 3(5) of BNS and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry prohibition Act, 7 , SKS'J Crl.P.No.6051 of 2()25

1961. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner hled the present criminal petition to quash the proceedings against him'

4. Heard Sri T. Damodar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon' learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State' Though notice served upon respondent No.2, none appeared on her behalf' Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 5. offences alleged against the petitioner were false and without any cause of action in India and that the complaint and FIR did not mention giving or taking of dowry' and when no dowry was given, the question of demanding additional dowry did not arise. He further submitted that no incident was alleged to have taken place in India against the petitioner/ accused No'1' and all allegations were vague and without dates' Since no specihc dates or details were mentioned' the aliegations were not believabie. The FIR and witness statements also did not contain any specihc role or allegation against the petitioner' It was pointed out that the vague allegations' if any' related only to incidents said to have occurred in the USA' and even in the 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6051 of 2O2S statement of LW2, Smt. Sowjanya, only one or two vague allegations were made against the petitioner in the USA and not in India. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Luxni Kant Shuklar, Jiteudra Panchal v. Intelligence Oflicer, NCB2, Thota Venkateshwarlu v. State of Andhra pradesh3 and Central Bureau of Investigation v. Arvind Khannaa. 6' on the other hald, learned Additional pubric prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the allegations ieveled against the petitioner are serious in nature. At this stage, quashing of proceedings against the petitioner does not arise. , Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminat petition. 7 . In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and on a perusal of the material available on record, it is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there were no specihc '1zor11 s scc s:z 'z2009 Lawsuit (SC) 135 '(2011) 9 SCC s27 o 1zors1 to scc oso -/ 5 sxs,J Crl.P.No.6051 of2()25 allegations against the petitioner and that the allegations' if any, were said to have occurred outside India, and therefore' the proceedings against him were liable to be quashed'

8. This Court is of the view that, while considering a petition under Section 482 Cr'P'C' for quashing of proceedings, the scope of interference is limited The Court has to examine whether the averments in the complaint and the statements recorded during investigation, taken at their face value, pima facie disclose the commission of the alleged offence. If the allegations, on their face, constitute the ingredients of the offence, the proceedings cannot be quashed at the threshold. The veracity of the allegations or the defence of the accused cannot be adjudicated at this stage( as those are matters for trial and evidence' g. Furthermore, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State oJ Madhga Ptadesh rts' Surendra Koris, wherein in paragraph No.14, reads as under: 'The High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not function t 1zo121 tO Supreme Court Cases 155 6 sxs.., Crl.P.No.605I of 2O2S as a Court of appeal or revision. This Court has, in several judgments, held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 4A2 Cr.P-C., though wide, has to be used sparingly, carefully and with caudon. The High Court, under Section 4g2 Cr.p.C., should normally refrain from giving a pnma facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and ha-zy, more so when the evidence has not been collected arld produced before the Court and the issues rnvolved, whether factual or legal, are of wide magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material." Madhya

10. The Honble Supreme Court in State of Pradesh v. Surendra Kori (supra) has held that the High Court, while exercising its powers under Section 4g2 Cr.p.C., does not function as a Court of appeal or revision and that the inherent jurisdiction, though wide, has to be exercised sparingly, with caution, and not in cases where facts are incomplete, hazy, or where evidence is yet to be colrected.

11. [n the present case, the defence taken by the petitioner that no dowry was given, that no incident occurred in India, and that the alregations were vague or confined to incidents in the USA, all relate to the merits of the case, which cannot be 7 SKS'J Ctl.P.No.6051 of 2025 gone into allegations cognizable at this stage' Since the complaint contalns wrl\ch pima /acie disclose the commission of offences, it ls not a ht case for quashing the proceedings under Sectio t 482 Cr 'P 'C Therefore, this Court does not hnd any merit in the criminal petition' and the same is liable to be dismissed Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed t2. Miscellaneousapplications,ifanypending,shallstand closed. sD/- A.V.S PRASAD I DEPUTY REGTSTRAR I //TRUE COPY// S CTION OFFICER To.

1. The Xl Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kukatpally' Medchal- tvlalkajgiri District cYberabad

2.ThePJCJ-cum-XlAdditionalmetropolitanMagistrate'Kukatpally' )tation, cyberabad 3. The station House Officer' Bachupally Police 4. Two CCs to the prbl;;E;;;toi, nirgn Court for the Siate of Telangana at -[ 5 lil';"rc i;snir bnrraooAR' Advocate [oPUCI 6. Two CD CoPies Hvderabad (OUT) ADK/PSLg HIGH COURT DATED:01109t2025 ORDER CRLP.No.6051 ot 2025 ) z-,ll,r:'Il.':t}*, . (.,,\...\ .\, i ? SrP ?lI35 .; ',: --:t -- DISMISSING THE CRLP U