The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of B SS, 2023 praying that in the f Grounds of Criminal Petition, the circumstances stated in the lt/emorandum High Court may be pleas-ed to stay of all fu her proceedings of C.C. No. 370 of 2025 on the file of Vl Addl. Metropolitan [M gistrate, Medchal Malkajgiri District, Uppal at L.B. Nagar,; This Petition coming on for hearing, pon perusing the Memorandum of ring the arguments of Sri I\/OHD etitioners and Sri E.Ganesh, Asst. ondent No. l and Sri Y.Subash, Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon h ISLAMUDDIN ANSARI, Advocate for the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Res Advocate for the Respondent No.2; The Court made the following: ORDER \l -THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMI NAL PETITI ON No.6O18 of 2025 ORDER: The present criminal petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS by the pe titioner/accused Nos. I and 2 seeking to call lor the records relatLng to and in connection with C.C.No.3TO of 2025 on the file of the learned VI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-MalkajE iri District, Uppal at L.B.Nagar, registered for the offences punishrLble under Section 85, 316(2), 351 (2) BNS and Sections 3 and 4 ol DP Act, and quash the same.

2. The brief fircts of the case are that, ot:. 20.Ol.2t]25 at 16:00 hours, Sub [nspcctor of Police, Woman police Station at Uppal, Rachakonda Dis;trict received a complaint from Smt. Shaik Sameena, alleging that her marriage was perf :rmed with Mohammed Akb ar Pasha/accused No.l on 2a.O2.|)O14 as per Muslim Rites and Customs. Accused No. 1 was working in Navabharath conrpany. As per the demand of her l_.usband and his mother by name Mohammed Ameeda/accused No.2, 15 tulas of go1d, Rs.8,OO,{)00/- cash, Rs. 1,50,000/- worth oI house hotd articles, Rs. 7O,00O/- worth of Hero Glamour, a plot worth of RS.fqOO,OOO/ rvere given as dowry. ImmediateLy after the marriage, the cornplainant joined the company of a,:cused No.1 2 ( and lead happy marital life for four y ars and out of their wedlock, complainant was blessed with two hildren. Later on, accused No.l has been appointed as an Ass stant Executive Engineer rn TSGENCO. Thereafter, accused No addicted to alcohol and did not take any responsibility and start d harassing the complainant both physically and mentally. He s d gold and plot given to the complainant and used the money for his vices. When questioned about the same, accused No.1 necke her out from the house and used [o provoke her son by body s ing her and stating tha[ she will perform another marriage for er son for getting dowry Therefore, the complainant lodged a c mplaint

3. On receipt of the said complai , the Women Police Station, Uppal, Rachakonda District, register d a case in Crime No.26 of 2025, daLed 26.01.2025, under Sect ons 85, 3t6(2l', 351(2) BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act.

4. Heard Sri Mohd Islamuddi Ansari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accuse Nos.l and 2, Sri Y.Subash, learncd counsel appearing for respon cnt No.2 and Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecuto appearing lor respondent No.1 State. Perused the record J

5. Learned counsel appe aring for the petitioners rvould submit that the marrial3e ol petitioner No.1 with respondent No.2 u,as solemnized on )-8.O2.2O14 . Out of their wedlock, they were blessed with two chitdren. They led happy maritat life for four years and there erfter, disputes arose between therlselves. As petitioner No.1 ir; working in Palvancha, respondent No.2 insisted him to take transfer from Palvancha to Hyderabad as she studied M.Pharmacy, wants to settle in Hyderabad and since petitioner No.1 refused to accept the same, respondent No.2 filed a false complaint base j on vagrle, unsubstantiated and frivolous allegations.

6. Learned counsel further submitted that there are no specific allegations or overt acts attributed against the petitioners. The investigation done by the pohce is also nothing more than a table investigation. N( t even a single date of alleged harassment by the petitioners is mentioned either in the report dated 20.10.2025 or in the statemen -s of witnesses recorded under Sel:tion 180 of BNSS by the ir vestigdting officer. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners shall vehemently result in futile exercise an,l hence seeks to allow this Criminal Petition. I l 4

7. To support his case, le judgment passed by the Hon,ble A ed counsel relied upon the Court in the matter of Sto,te of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlalr held as follows; "The fo otuing categoies of case illustration uherein the extraordinc or the tnherent potuers under S, exercised bg the High Court eitfu process of ctng court or othenaise tr though it maA not be possible t.o la! def.ned and su"ffi.ciently channelize or igid formulae and to giue an kinds of cases tuherein such power (1) Where the allegations made in or the complaint, euen if theg are ta accepted in their entiretA do not l offence or moke out a case against I (2) Where the allegations in the fi.t olher moteials, if ony, accompangi a cognizctble offence, justifuing a offi.cers under Section 156 of the Ct oI a Mogistrota u.tithin the puruiew ls can be stoted by utoy of l* ,o-", under Article 226 bction 482 Cr.P.C can l-te lr to preuent abuse of the the ends of justice, | ""orr" I oo*n on, or"cise, clertrll4 ld and inJlenble guidetines exhaustiue tist of mgriad. should be exercised: ln 7rr, infonnation report Iten at their face ualue and l ma Tocie constitute ang lh. o"r,,t"d. lst information report and ig the FIR do not d.isclose f. inuestigation by police ld.. .r..pt und-er an order of Section 155 (2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontrouerted allegc complaint and the euidence collected not disclose the commission of ang case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the cognizable offence but constitute offence, no inuestigation is permi Itions made in the FIR or in support of the same do offence and make out a FIR do not constitute a only a non cognizable lt"a Ao a police offi.cer I 1992 supplernentar_,- (l) SCC ll5 ) ) uithout an ord-er of a Mogistrate as contemplateC under Section 155('.1) of the Code. (5) Where tlrc atlegations made in the FIR or complaitfi are so absurd and. inh-erentlg improbable on the basis of ruhich no prudent person can euer reach a just conclusion thoi there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused' (6) Wtrcre th<:re is on express legal bar engrafied in any of the prouisions oi the Code or the concemed Act (under uthich a ciminal prc ceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuonce of the proceed.ings and/ or uhere there is a specif.c prou:ston in the Code or the concerned Act, prouiding efficacious redress for the grieuance oJ the aggrieued porty ' (7) Where o ciminal proceeding is manifestlg attended tuith mala fid.e end/ or tuhere the proceeding is moliciously instituted uth an ulteior motirc for ureaking uengeance on the acansed and tttith o uieLu to spite him due to pnuote and personol gntdge." Learned ,lounsel appearing for respondent No'2 would

8. submit that FIR has been filed and investigation has been conducted, as :nany as 7 witnesses have been examined and unless and untll full-fledged trial is conducted by cxamining the evidence and fa<:ts belore it, truth rvill not be elicited.

9. The learned A.ssistant Public Prosecutor vehemently contended that only after completion of the investigation, the investigating ofhcer has filed charge-sheet before the learned trial Court and the case was nrtmbered as C.C.No 37O of 2025 anrl the truth or .\ 6 otherwise would bc revealed c nly after fuli-fledge d trial Therefore, he prays this Court to dismiss the present criminal petition. 1O. Considcring the submission of learned counsel for the parties and taking into consider on the fact that petitioner No.2/accused No.2 is a senior citizen, her appearance ls dispensed with in C.C.No.37O of 20 5 on the hle of the learned VI Additional Mctropolitan Magistrate Medchal-Malkaj giri District, Uppal at L.B.Nagar when represen d by her counsel on record. The appearance of petitioner No.2 is dispensed with subject to filing an alhdavit by petitioner No. stating that in her absence, the proceedings conducted by her unsel will not be disputed by her any manner. However, the peti ner No.2 shall appear before the learned Magistrate as and whe her presence is required. in the event of failure of the petition r No.2 to appear when the Court directs, this order dispens with her appearance stands vacated automatically 1 1 . Accordingly, tlle Criminal Pe tion is disposed of granting the liberty, as sought for by the peti oners, to file an appropriate application before the trial Court, eking discharge. Upon filing such application, thc trial Cou shall examine and pass 1 appropriate ord€rs. However, in vievy of the urgency expressed by the learned cou,sel for the petitioners, the trial CouLrt is directecl to conduct and <:onclude trial in C.C.No.37O of 2025 on the file of the learned VI Additional Metropolitan Magistrar_e, Medchal- Malkajgiri District, Uppal at L. B. Nagar as expr.ditiously as possible, prefera:ly within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. t2 Accordingl.r, the criminal petition is disposed of Pending nriscellaneous applications, if anv, shall stand closed. SD/- K.SAI KUMAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTI OFFICER To,

1. The Vl Addl. Metlopolitan Magistrate, Medchal Malkajgiri District 2. The Station House Officer, Women P S., Uppal, Rachakonda 3. One CC to SRl. VIOHD ISLAMUDDIN ANSARI Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRl. Y.Subash, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court at Hyderabad (OUT) 6. Two CD Copies VSI\4/PSL W HIGH COURT I DATED:2 510712025 riF- Sf o () ;;l 5 AUE 20[ I l -1* ORDER CRLP.No.601tl ot 2025 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION q 1 CI