The High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court, Hyderabad 2. Smt. K. Madhuri Reddy, WO K. Chakradhar Reddy 43 years, Pvt. Service, R/O 18-5-552, Aliabad, Hyderabad 500 053 ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS 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 quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 208112020 on the file of the V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District against the petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 , 6 and 7 and pass. l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 Petition under Sectron 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 of all further proceedings in C.C.No. 208112020 on the file of the V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, including appearance of the petitioners/accused Nos. 1, 6 and 7 and pass. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Y KRISHNA MOHAN RAO, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri [t/.Vivekananda Reddy, the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER : €i;a-r ---7 "*" ....... .l THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No-6O53 of 2o25 ORDER: , This Criminal Petition is fiIed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'the BNSS) seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.208l of 2O2O on the hle of learned V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Redcly District at L.B. Nagar, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 498-4 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 1PCJ and Sections 3 arrd 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, 'DP ActJ.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on the de-focto complainant lodged a report before the Police stating that she married accused No.1 on 22.02.2019. At the time of marriage, her parents gave 6O tulas of gold, 5 kilograms of silver, and cash as dowry. During this process, the accused demanded additional cash. The marriage was performed by her parents in a grand ceremony. After the wedding, accused No.l visited the house of the complainant on 23.O2.2ot9. The following day, 2 sKs,J Crl.P.No.6O53 of 2O25

24.02 .2079 , a ceremony was held at the residence of her mother. During that event, her husband's sister quarrelled u,ith her mother, alleging that there was no communication regarding the gifts. 'lhey gave silver items to the sister, but further demands u,ere made to give items to the other two sisters as well. Lat(lr that day, the complainant went to her in-laws' house. The in-laws told her husband that they felt insulted by the complait-rant's mother. He did not respond to them, but instead told the complainant that her mother rras not a good person anrl t-hat he would continue saying so. Or:. 2T .O2.2O19, the complainant returned to her mother's house and sta),ed there for ten days. During that period, neither her husband nor her in [as,s contacted her. She repeatedly called her husband, asking him to come get her and to register tl-reir marriage. After ten days, her husband took her to a temple in Jadcherla. lJpon returning home, he physically assaulted her, telling her :hat he did not like her.

3. On 1:J.03.2019, he left for the United States. The complainant kept calling and messaging him. She stayed u,ith her mother for a few more days before returning to her in-laws, house. One clay, her sister-in-law quarreled with her again and ( 3 sI<s,J CrI.P,No.6053 of 2025 threatened her. The next day, the complainant returned to her mother's home. Her husband called and quarreled with her over the phone, insisting she should not stay with his mother. Throughout this time, he made no effort to initiate the green card process for her, despite being a U.S. citizen. Later, he stopped communicating with her altogether. She continued calling and messaging him and submitted all necessary documents, even those not required for the immigration process. However, he still took no action. On 13.1 1.2019, he informed her that he had come to Hyderabad for urgent work but did not disclose that his brother (Accused No.7) was getting engaged on 15.1 1.2O1g. Since he refused to come and take her, her mother and two brothers visited her in-laws' house and confronted them. The compiainant compromised and stayed at the in-laws'house, but they did not treat her as their daughter- in-1aw.

4. During this period, her grandmother passed away, and she went to attend the funeral. Afterward, her husband messaged her, stating she should not return home due to shusti. His brother married on O1.12.2O19 in Hanumakonda. However, on 77.11.2019, her husband hled a complaint against !!r- \ '?s{'-r4:^1& ..,-"'! .'i!La: q: \: SKS,J Crl.P.No.6O53 of 2O25 \- Lhe complainant, her mother, her two brothers, and a cousin, alleging that he felt threatened by them. Throughout this period, thc r:omplainant was physically and mentally harassed and was strbjected to further demands for dowry.

5. Baserd on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime N,r.385 of 2Ol9 for the offence punishable under Sections 498 A and 506 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act and after c,lmpletion of investigation, they f,rled the charge sheet, ,ide C.C.No.2O81 of 2O2O, before the learned V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners hled the present criminal petition to quash the proceeding against him.

6. Heard Sri Y. Krishna Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prcsecutor, appearing for respondent No.1-State. Though notice is served, none appeared on behalf of the respondenl No.2.

7. Leanred counsel for the petitioners submitted that the proceedings against accused Nos.2 to 5 in the same calendar case were quashed by this Court on O3.O3.2O25, uide l- -:..jf-nlr :---;!a:w / 5 sr(s,J Crl.P,No.6053 of 2025 Crl.P.No.1288 of 2027, and contended that the same reasonlng is applicable to the present petitioners as well and that apart from a bald allegation that the accused harassed the complainant both physically and menLally and demanded additional dowry, there are no specihc allegationS or overt acts attributed to the petitioners and further submitted that accused No.l and the complainant barely cohabited for a few days, and the allegations concerning harassment are entirely unsubstantiated and that accused No.I was not present in India at the time of the marriage arrangements and did not participate in any meetings conducted by the complainant's parents. Even as per the complaint itself, petitioner No.1 was in the United States, rendering the allegations against him are vague and unconvincing.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioner No.2, who also resides in the United States, did not attend the wedding of petitioner No.1 and the complainant. Yet, she has been implicated in the alleged offences without any legal basis or valid reasoning. Petitioner No.3, likewise residing in the United States, had traveiled to India solely to attend the said marriage and subsequently returned abroad. Despite his 6 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6053 of 2O25 limited invoJ.vement, he too has been unnecessarily implicated in offences for which he had no connection with. Therefore, prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners by allowing the present criminal petition.

9. The learned Assistant public prosecutor submitted that the allegations made in the complaint, when taken at face value, disclose t:re commission of offences and involve serious accusations cf harassment lor dowry both physical and mental by the accused persons, including the petitioners and that the mere fact that the petitioners reside in the United States or were not physicalJy present at the time of marriage arrangements does not, in itself, preclude their involvement and prayed the Court to pass appropriate orders .

10. In vieia. of the submissions made by both the learned counsel ancl upon perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the petitioners are residing in USA. There are no specific or substantiated allegations against them, except a vague assertion that accused No.1, despite being a U.S. citizen, did not take the complainant to tlee United States and had not applied for her green card. It is further alleged that he visited India to attend his brother,s marriage without informing the 7 SKS'J Crl.P.No.5053 of 2025 complainant. Apart from these contentions, the remaining allegations pertain to an alleged demand for additional dowry at the time of marriage by other petitioners. However, these allegations are in general or casual reference rt'hich iacks specificity and that the proceedings against alcused Nos.2 to 4 have already been quashed by this Court. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that conlinuation of criminal proccedings against the petitioners is nothing but an abuse of process of law. 1 1. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allou'ed ancl thr: proceedings against the petitioners in C.C'No.2081 of 2O2O t:n the file of learned V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall alstr stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- P.PONNA KIRSHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR -'-@ SECTION OFFICER I To, District

1. TheVAdditional Metropolitan Magistrate at L'B Nagar' Ranga Reddy 2. The Station House Officer, Police Stat'ron'- Seroornagar WP^S-' Rachakonda i. onl cc to sRl Y KRlsiNA MoHAN RAo Advocate [oPUCl 4. Two CCs to the puOtic piosecut"'' i'gf' Court for the State of Telangana at 5. Two CD CoPies Hyderabad [OUT] & i. -..1x'.--1rx'''':-.rya:^-3xs'* TPK/PSL !: | ':'I I E'' - rI{ " t! ' ! fF: Ia -',4- HIGH COURT DATE D: 31 lO7 12025 .r ;, ::) ,.1 $1 I]tI 2$6 a: rir'- i '', .,,.,.., ORDER CRLP.No.6053 of 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED s $ + I I I i I I I l I i I ! i i I I i I I j I I I I I i I