The High Court · 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 pleased to stay all further proceedings in CC No. 2284 of 2024 on the file of the Learned Xl Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Kukatpally, Medchal- Malkajgiri District, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition, in the interest of justice. I.A. NO i 2 0F 2021i 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 receive the additional material papers to the record of the criminal case CRLP .NO 6051 of 2025 This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T Damodar, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and Sri Baglekar Akash Kumar, for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER ,z I I THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6O51 6f 2o25 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is hled seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No. 1 in C.C.No.2284 of 2024 on the file of the learned XI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kukatpally, Medchal- Malkajgiri District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 35 1(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 performed her daughter's marriage with the petitioner on 13.O2.2022 at Hyderabad and gave 50 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 \-r 2 SKS,J Crl.I'.I{o.605l of 2025 demanded further dowry, her entire salary, and a flat. On the elders' advir;e, the complainant agree.d for the sake of her daughter and sent her back to America. The very next day, the petitiont:r again beat her in drunken condition, and she Iodged 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 complainant 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 broLher accused her daughter of having a bo1'friend in America, filed a false case against her son, and attacked the complainant.

3. Basing on the said complaint, the Poiice registered a case in Crime No.765 of 2024 of Bachupally Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate and after completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet, vide C.C.No.2284 of 2024 before the learned XI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kukatpally, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 351(2) read with 3(5) of BNS and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.5OS1 of2025 i961. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed 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. Sri Baglekar Akash Kumar appeared on behalf of respondent No.2 aud Filed Counter aflidavit.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 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 ail allegations were vague and without dates. Since no speciflc dates or details were mentioned, the allegations were not believable. 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 sr{s,J Crl. P.No.605l of2025 \:- \ statement of LW2, Smt. Sowjanya, only one oI' two vague allegations rvere made against the petitioner in the USA and not in Inrlia. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Luxmi Kant Shuklar, Jitendra Panchal v. Intelligence Officer, NcB2, Thota Venkateshwarlu v. State of Andhra Pradesh3 rind Central Bureau of Investigation v. Arvind Khannar.

6. On lhc other hand, learned Additional Ptrbl r; Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned cortnsel for the petitioner staLing that the allegations leveled 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 criminal petiti()n. 7 . In the light of the submissions made b1, the learned counsel for the petitioner and on a perusal of the material available on record, it is the specific contention of the iearned counsel for the petitioner that there were no specilic ' 1zou1 s scc s:z 'z 2009 Lawsuit (5C) 135 ' 1zor11 s scc szu " 1zors1 ro scc oae 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6051 of 2()25 allegations against the petitioner and that the ailegations, 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, prima 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 I 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.

9. Furthermore, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhga Pradesh us. Surendra I(oris, 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 12Ot21 tO supr".e court Cases 155 SKS,J Crl. P.No.6051 of 2O2S \ as a Court of appeal or revision. This Court has, in several judgments, held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr P.C., though wide, has to be used sparingly, carefully and with caution. The High Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., should nornally refrain from giving a pima Jacie de<:ision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not b€en collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved. whether factual or legal, are of wide magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without su{fic'ient material. "

10. The tlonble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Surendra Kori (supra) has held thrrt the High Court, while exercising its powers under Section .182 Cr.P.C., does not function as a Court of appeal or revision ilnd that the inherent .jurisdiction, though wide, has to br: exercised sparingly, with caution, and not in cases whe re facts are incomplete, hazy, or where evidence is yet to be collected.

11. In the present case, the defence taken by the petitioner that no dowry was given, that no incident occurrt:d in India, and that the allegations were vagr.re or conhned to incidents in the USA, all relate to the merits of the case, which cannot be 1 sr{s,J Crl.P.No.6051 of2025 gone into at this stage. Since the complaint contains allegations which pnma .1fizcie disclose the comrnission of cognizable offences, it is not a fit case for quashing the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the criminal petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed.

12. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. sD/- A.V.S PRASAD DEPUTY RECISTRAR \ Note: This Order is amended as per the Court order dated 19.09.2025 in LA. No. 3 of 2025 by replacing the Words "through notice Served upon respondent No.2, none appeared on her behalf', with "Sri Baglekar Akash Kumar appeared on behalf of respondent No.2 and filed counter affidavit". This Order substitutes the earlier order dispatched on 17.09.2025. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- A.V.S. PRASAD PUTY REGIS ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Xl Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kukatpally, Medchal- Malkajgiri District

2. The PJCJ-cum-Xl Additional metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad I. I I--

3. The station House Officer, Bachupally Police Station, Cyberabad 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

5. One CC to SRI T DAMODAR, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri Baglekar Akash Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies WADK \ I HIGH COURT' DATED:01 10912025 DATED:1910912025 ,) 15 [[I 2ry5 \) .f, '.'-/2 I AMENDED ORDER CRLP.No.6051 of 2025 DISMISSING I-HE CRLP 1 \0 '\