The High Court · 2025

Malkajgiri District, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. ,..PETITIONER/ACCUSED ..RESPONDENT 2- Kamini Bharadwaj Paneri, D/o- Late. K.C. Bharadwaj, Age.45 Years, Occ Abacus Soft Skill Trainer, R1 o. Villa No. 97, The Neighbourhood, Gundla Pochampally, Medchal tvlalkajgiri District, Cell No. 9818204290. ...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO.COMPLAINANT 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 quash the charge sheet in C.C. No. 685 of 2022, on the file of Hon'ble lX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Medchal as against the petitioner/ Accused. l.A. NO: 1OF 2024 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 extend the interim order granted in Crl. P. No 5038 of 2023, dated 09-06-2023 until further orders. This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K VENUMADHAV, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri. E. Ganesh, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 The Court made the following: ORDER I THE IICIN'BLE SRI WSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL aBg\!INAL PErITIoN No.So38 0F 20.23 ORD ER: This Crirn nal petition is filed by the petitroner seeking to quash the ch:u.g,r sheet against him in C.C.No.6B5 of 2(t22on the frle of the lr:z rned IX Additional Metropolitan IVlagistrate, Cyberabad, at IVI rrlchal (for short, .the trial Court.). 2. Heard V[r j,i.Venu Madhav, learned counst:i for the petitioner and IvI E.Ganesh, learned Assistant public pr.osecutor appearing for res r.>ndent No.l _State. 3. The brief f:r 1si of the case are that respondent No.2 ,tde facto comprainant a'1 ,sfitioner/accused are wife and husbrmd and there were disp,trt :s between them; respondent No.2 filerl a case against the petiti rner in Vasanth Vihar police Station, South West, Delhi in t h, year, 20 19 and further, a domestic ,riolence case rride No.2z.e ,. was also filed in patiala Hous,__, Mahila Magistrate Court; that during the month of Mar,:h 2O2O respondent No.1l t ri.d shifted her residence to H-vcler.aba d from Delhi and resricl "rg at Villa No.97, the Neight,or:Lrhood, ;along with her children; that sincr: thr:n, the petitioner is harir:r ing respondent No.2 by sending e_nratls and Gundl@ochampall i ,/' l j ! ! i 1 I I I I \ 2 abusing the family members of respondent No.2 in lilthy language with an intent to insult her and provoke breach of peace. Basing on the said facts F.I.R.No. 1200 of 2021 was registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of I.P.C. Later, upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 504 of I.P.C. and numbered as C.C.No.685 of 2022.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.2 has been pressing upon maintenance even though she was holding the assets of the petitioner. He further submits that there were disputes between both of them and respondent No.2 had filed several cases against him. He further submits that in order to wreck vengeance against the petitioner, respondent No.2 had filed the present case and if investigated further, the offence alleged against the petitioner shall not withstand the scrutiny of law. Therefore, relying upon the decisions passed by the Hon'lole Supreme Court in Manik Taneja and another Vs. State of Karnataka and anotherr and Fiona Shrikhande Vs. State of ' zOts ta* Suit 1SC; 52 I ,1/ J Maharashtra :rrrrI anotherz, learned counsel seeks to allow the Criminal petit or: I \

5. Iearned { sistant public prosecutor submitsr r-hat the complaint filed b- respondent No.2 and her Section l6 j Cr.p.C. statements cleerl5 :rnd categorica-lly revea_l that the petitioner had sent e_mails to r :spondent No.2 abusing her and her. family members in filthrr a nguage. Hence, the petiti ner is liable for the offence under Sr:r,t. :,n , 504 of I.p.C. Therefore, he seeks to rlismiss this Criminal peti.:ir ir. 6. Having regarr to the submissions of both the lt:arned counsel and upon rerusal of the material -'o'"t'al available on r::cord, this court is of ttr .iew rL^+ ..:-" that the matter requires ad,udrcatron at length and only ,0,,. ,*'* conclusion of a full_fledged triat, the .!ruth would come to lighr Therefore, this Court ts not incline,d to entertain the Crimina petition at the premature stage. ( (

7. Accordingly, ttir Criminal petition is dismissed. Ho'w6 yg1, as sought by th aPPearance of the pr:ti t ( 'ner before the trial Court of 2022 is dispensed .v tir on axd undl specificall,, rn C.C.N,t.(rg5 each and every adjournment unl,,ss .l :arned counsel for the petitioner I : quired by the trial Court. Needles s '2013 La* Suit (sc) 742 ! I I € 4 mention, the petitioner is at liberty to frle an appropria.te application before the trial Court under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. seeking to discharge him, if so required. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ASsrsrAfi?/iftfll{l* //TRUE COPYII The lX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cybrerab The Station Hou se Officer, petbas heerabad police Station Cyberabad One CC to Sri K Venumadhav , Advocate [OpUC Two CCs to the Public prosecu tor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad louTl Two C D Copies at Medchal j SECTION OFFICER I { To, 1 2 ) 4

5. w /PSL HIGH COUR-r DATED:05 t9iil20Zs z== i itt ( : lif 1 o( ( J o ?B ut,2g25 z O A t l)i ..st i f(:' ..=: rt,Q )t ORDER CRLP.No.503iB of 2023 DISMISSING TII E CRIMINAL PETITION j I I i