The High Court · 2025

Petrtion under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the lt/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petltion, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in C C. No 28112024 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special [\4obile Court, Khammam. 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 pleased to STAY o{ all further proceedings including the appearance of the Petitroners in C C No 281 of 2024 on the file of the Court of the Judicial lVlagistrate of First Class. Special Mobile Court. Khammanr till the pendrng disposal of the above Crimrnal Petition This Petition coming on for hearrng, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petrtion and upon hearing the arguments of Sri U Shanthi Bhushan Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No 1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. TIUSTICE K, SU'IANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6O48 of 20125 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.281 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Khammam, registered for the offences punishable under Sections a98 (A) and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'DP ActJ.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 2O.O4 .2024 respondent No.2/de facto complainant.lodged a report belore the Police against the petitioners stating that her younger daughter, Shalini, was married to Pogula Bharath Kumar on

30.10.2015 at CER Club, Yellandu, after a dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- cash and 2O tolas of gold was given as per the demand of the groom's family. After marriage, the couple moved to the United States, where her husband was working in a private company in Oregon. Though the marriage was 2 sxs,J Crl.P.No.6048 of 2025 \ initially smooth, Shalini was later subjected to continuous mental and physical harassment by her husband, his aunty Latha, uncle Salyanarayana, and brother-in-law Sharath Kumar. She was denied conjugal rights, confined in the house, abused in vulgar language, suspected of her character, threatened, and assaulted.. She was allowed to visit her maternal home only twice in eight years, and the accused also threatened to take away her children and demanded additional dowry. As a rqsult, the victim went into depression and sent a representation to the Commissioner of Police, Khammam, on 15.04.2024.

3. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.40 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 498 (A) and 506 read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act and after completion of investigation, they Iiled charge sheet vide C.C.No.281 of 2024 before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Khammam. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed the present criminal petition. 7 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6048 of 2o25

4. Heard Sri U. Shanthi Bhushan Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.l-State and Sri S.M. Rafee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no complaint was ever made by the de facto complainant or her daughter to any local authority in the United States of America at any point of time and that the contents of the complaint, even if taken at face value, do not pima facie disclose the commission of any cognizable offence, much less under Sections 498-A or 506 of the IPC or Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act. He further submitted that the statements of LWl to LWS were recorded when LW2, the daughter of the complainant and wife of petitioner No. 1, was not even physically present before the Station House Officer in India, and therefore the credibility of such statements is questionable and that LW 1 and LW3 to LWS are closely related and hence interested witnesses, and their statements are purely hearsay in nature, lacking any direct knowledge of the alleged incidents. 4 sKs,J Crl-P.No.6048 of 2025

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that none of the statements specify the place or time of the alleged acts of harassment or abuse and that LW2 ar':d accused No. 1, along with their two minor children, have been residing in the United States of America even at the time of todging the complaint, registration of FIR, and filing of the final report. He further contended that accused Nos.2 to 4 reside in separate households and have no day-to-day interaction with the complainant's daughter, and their implication in the case is nothing but a misuse of process and a vitiated attempt to rope in the entire family. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners by allowing this criminal petition.

7. On the other hand, learned Additional public prosecutor submitted that the matter is at the stage of trial and there are serious allegations against the petitioners. Therefore, at this stage quashing of proceedings against them do not arise and prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

8. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, filed counter affidavit denying the averments made by the learned counsel -/ 5 sKs,J Crl.P.l[o.6O4E of 2025 for the petitioners stating that the quash petition hled by the petitioners is a clear attempt to avoid trial and suppress the truth, and therefore deserves to be dismissed. He further submitted that the complaint may have been lodged by the mother of the complainant, but it clearly reflects the ordeal and continuous harassment faced by respondent No.2 at the hands of her husband and his family members while residing in the USA and that contrary to the claims made in the petition, respondent Nq.2 had in fact made multiple complaints to authorities, including the local police in the USA and the NRI Ceil of the National Commission for Women, which are supported by documentary evidence filed along with the reply.

9. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that the allegations in the complaint and witness statements disclose a prima facie case warranting trial under Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act and that the Investigating Officer had recorded the statement of respondent No. 2 over the phone as she was not allowed to return to India by her husband. As regards the statements of other witnesses, the counsel argued that the credibility and ( 6 SKS,J crl-P.I{o.6048 of 2025 reliability of witnesses can only be tested during trial. On the issue of delay in lodging the complaint, it was submitted that the delay is justified as the respondent was conhned and harassed, and only after being thrown out of the house in the USA was she able to re turn to India and scek justice Regarding the presence of Accused Nos. 2 to 4, the counsel submitted that Accused No.4 resided in the USA with Accused No.1 and Respondent No. 2, while Accused Nos. 2 and 3 regularly visited and stayed with them, during which period they also subjected her to cruelty. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition

10. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon a perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the marriage of the daughter of respondent No.2, with accused No. l, was performed on

30.10.2015, and thereafter the couple moved to the United States. It is alleged that though the marriage was initially cordial, disputes arose, and daughter of respondent No.2 was subjected to mental and physical cruelty, denial of conjugal rights, vulgar abuse, and threats from her husband. It is further alleged that her husband demanded additional dowry 7 7 sKs,J Crl.P.fo.6O4t of 2025 and confined her within the house, resulting in severe emotional distress. The allegations against accused No. I are specihc and serious in nature, involving acts of cruelty and dowry harassment, and are supported by a complaint. These are disputed questions of fact that require examination during trial and cannot be adjudicated upon at this stage under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.

11. However, insofar as accused Nos.2 to 4 are concerned the allegations made in the complaint are vague and general in nature. There is no specihc overt act attributed to them individually, nor any clear material to show that they resided continuously with the daughter of the complainant or participated directly in the alleged acts of cruelty. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhsn6t h.. categorically held that in matrimonial cases, relatives who are not part of the matrimonial household and against whom no specific allegations are made, should not be mechanically roped in, as it leads to misuse of criminal law and causes undue hardship to innocent persons. ' 1zoro1 z scc ooz / SKS,J Crl.P.No.6O4a of 2025

12. In the present case, taking the allegations at their face value, the role of accused Nos.2 to 4 does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence and continuation of proceedings against them would amount to abuse of process of law. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that the proceedings as against accused No.1 shall continue, while those against accused Nos.2 to 4 is liable to be quashed. I 3. Accordingly, this .criminal and the proceedings against petitioner Nos.2 to 4 in C.C.No.281 of 2024 on the hle of rhe learned Judicial petrtron IS allowed-in-part Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Khammam are hereby quashed. Further, the trial Court is directed to proceed further against petitioner No. 1. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed //TRUE COPY// ,TT SD/- U. SUDHA TANT REGISTRAR t isecttoN oFFrcER To, 1 The Special J udicial Khammam. Magistrate of First Class, Special lvlobile Court,

2. The Station House Officer, WPS Khammam Police Station, Khammam District.

3. One CC to Sri. U Shanthi Bhushan Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies. YIR/Glr HIGH COURT DATED:1710712025 1 HE ..l r,q l.c R( o (1( J c 7- 30JUrx6 a () ORDER CRLP.No.6048 of 2025 PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION.