In one of the receat prooouncements of this Court in Mahmood Ali and Ors v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad. Through P.S., WPS Saroomagar

2. Smt. Palreddy Vanaja, Wo. Late Palreddy Bhupat Reddy, Aged About.65 years, Occ. House wife, Rl/o. Plot No. 21, H.No. 16-116, Madhavanagar, Road No. 19, Meerpet, Ranga Reddy District500097 ...RESPONDENT'COiIPLAINANT ...RESPONDENT'DEfACTOCOiIPLAINANT Petition under Section 528 of BNSS prayrng that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in CC. No. 255 of 2O25 on the file of lll Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum- lll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy at L.B. Nagar against the Petitioners/Accuses A5 to AB l.A. NO: 1OF 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. 255 ot 2O25 on the file of lll Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum- lll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy at L.B. Nagar against the Petitioners/Accuses A5 to A8 in pending disposal of the Quash Petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusir g the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the argunr :nts of sri cH VENKAT REDDY' Advocate for the petitioners and sRr M vr /EKANANDA REDDY, ASSISTANT PUBLIC PRosEcuroR on beharf of the Respondent No.1 and None Appeared forthe Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER TIIE HONOURABLE SUT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIUINAL PEIITION No.6t025 of 2o.25 ORAL ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/ accused Nos.5 to 8 in C.C.No.255 of 2C25 on the file of the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Ill Additional Judicial Magistrate of First cl,ass, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 4O6 and 5O6 of the Indian Penal Code, 186O and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dow5r Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 26.L1.2O24, de facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Police stating tl.at her daughter, Sree Nithya, was married to Alimineti Rahuf Reddy/accused No. 1. The marriage was took place on 26.1C.2023 at Ev€nt Vitla Function Hall, Nagole, in the time of marriage, as per the presence of elders. At ttt€ demand of the groorn and his family, she gave Rs.4O lakhs in cash, 35 tulas of gold, and 'h kg of silver as dowry. After tJle marriage, her daughter lived happily vrith her husband for 2 sxs,.r )rl-P.Xo.6O2S of Zr25 about 10 days. Thereafter, Rahul Reddy lef for Australia, Ieaving Sree Nithya at his parents. house in Ko; remula Village, where she stayed for two months. [.ater, aftt r her husband sent her a visa, Sree Nithya joined him in Aus ralia and they stayed at 8 Dennelly Crescent, South More ng VIC 3752. Subsequently, Sree Nithya informed her motl er tJ:at Rahul Reddy had previously married another wom,:t I in Australia and had obtained a divorce. She furthbr inforrr :d that he was subjecting her to mentat ald physical harassme rt, demanding she sell her propert5r and give him additional r loney, stating the dowr5r given was insuflicient. Eventually, he left her at the house of known persons and stopped respondir g to her calls. When ttre complainant informed the parbnts zr d relajves of Rahul Reddy about ttre situation, t.Iley threatenr i and abused her, warning her not to disclose the rnatter to alr .one.

3. Basing on the said complaint, the polir r registered a case in Crime No.48O of 2024 for the offence ; punishable under Sections 498-4., 406 and 5O6 of the Indizu : penal Code, 186O ald Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry prohibit on Act, 1961 and after completion of investigationi they filec :harge sheet vide C.C.No.255 of 2025 before the learned I.I Additional \ 3 sKfi,J Crl.P.tro.6o25 of 2orrs Jr:nior Civil Judge-cum{Il Additional Judicial Magistrate of First cl,ass, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. Aggrieved by the said charge sheet, the petitioners/ accused Nos.s to 8 filed the present crirninal petition to quash the proceedings against

4. Heard Sri Ch. Venkat Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, Iearned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.l - State. Though notice served upon rcspondent No.2, none appeared on her behalf.

5. kamed counsel for the petiLioners submitted that the petitioners were wrongly implicated in the said case and tl.e allegations leveled against tl:lem, prima facie, do not constitute any offence as alleged in tlle complaint. He further submitted that the petitioners never interfered in the matrimonial disputes between accused No.l and daughter of respondent No.2. Police fited the charge sheet without veriSing tJre matter and there are no specific allegations against the petitioners except stating tJrat they supported accused No'1' sKs,J >tl.P.No -6025 of 2O2A Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash t re proceedings 2 ga inst tJre petitioners.

6. On the other hand, Iearned Assistant pu blic prosecutor submitted tJlat the petitioners are not residin I witJr accused No. 1 and ttre daughter of respondent No.2 a_r: < further, there are no specific allegations against the petitiorLr rs. Ttrerefore, he prayed tJ:e Court to pass appropriate orders. 7 . In tl.e light of the submissions made by both the I available on stant relatives inst them are lear,ned counsel and a perusal of the mater. z record, it appears that the petitioners are the <l of aecused No. I and the allegations leveled a51r that they harassed the daughter of respon,i demanded additional dowry. It is specifrcall5. the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 1 he petitioners are not residing with accused No.I and thr daughter of respondent No.2 and further contended that except supporting accused No.I, they never interf: ed with tJle matrimonial disputes between them. :nt No.2 and contended by 5 sxsy' CiLP.Io.6O25 of 2()25

8. At this stage, it is imperative to note the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Achln @rpta as. *ate ol fraryanw antd another 1, wherein in paragraph No.35, it is held as under: '35. In one of the receat prooouncements of this Court in Mahmood Ali and Ors vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors-, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 95O, authored by one of us (J.El. Pardiwala, j.l, the legal Principle applicable apropos Section 482 of the Cr.P.C was era-mined. Therein, it was observed that when an accused comes beforc the High Court, invoking either the ir rcrent power under Section 482 Cr.P.c or the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed, essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or institut€d with the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances, the High Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a Iittle more closely. It was furttrer observed that it wiII not be enough for tlre Court to look into tl-Ie averments made in the FlR/complaint alone for t}Ie purpose of ascerta.ining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not as, in frivolous or vexatious proceedings, ttre Court owes a duty to look into many other attending 'C.i-in"t Apped No - 2379 o{ 20/24 6 srs,J :rLP.[o.6ql5 of 2025 r-. circumstances emetgirg from the reccr I of the case over and above the averEents ar I, if need be, witl1 due carc and circumspecti() , to try and read between the tines..

9. As observed by the Honble Supreme ( Gupta (supra), the averrnents in the complain _ the alleged ingredients of the offences. In tlLr except omnibus allegations, there are no a.llegati,ons against tJle - petitioners, who ar relatives of accused No. l. Further, the Hon,bl: Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand2, has otrr family members, who are residing away from cannot be roped into the case. In the preser bald allegations, there are no speciflc allegatio: petitioners. In view thereot as the petitioners il along with accused No. 1, the allegations agzr considered to be vague. Therefore, this C,t considered view that even if the trial is conducte would be served and tleat since there are no allegations against the petitioners, the proce,-- ep1 i1 flshin has to disclose present case, other speciFrc ) the distant Apex Court in erved that the accused No.1, ! case, except rs against the e not residing nst tl:rem are rrt is, of the i, no purpose rther specilic lings against them are liable to be quashed. tlzotol z scc soz I i 7 srs", C<I-P.I[o.6O2S of 2q|E

10. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed arrd ttre proceedings agninst the petitioners in C.C.No.255 of 2025 on the file of the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Ill Additional Jud.icial Magistrate of First class, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, are hereby guashed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall starrd closed. SD'. A.H.S. GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR i. SECTION OFFICER ,,TRUE COPY" I To,

1. The lll Additional Junior civil Judge-cum- lll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy at L.B. Nagar

2. The Station House Officer, Saroornagar WPS, Saroornagar' Rachakonda District

3. One CC to SRI CH VENKAT REDDY Advocate [OPUCI 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI

5. Two CD Copies VtUgh HIGHCOURT DATED: OGnAl2OZs ORDER CRLP.No.6025 ot 2O2S , ,i,. 1l !E; 2[2r 1 .. t -u/ t * ALLOWNG THE CRIMINAL PETITION ?IRlzr