Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr v. RAJA SHEKAR REDDY AND vENKAT RAM REDDY

2. Smt. Neelima Gaddam, Wio. Dev Raj, age.29 years, R/o. Private Service, R/o. H.no.1-90, Hasanpally Village, Nizamsagar Mandal, Kamareddy District 503 302 (TS). ...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO . COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Me-morandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to call for the records relating to and connected with calendar case No.55 of 2025 in Cr.No.S of 2025 of Nizamsagar Police Station, Kamareddy District, on the file of the learned Judicial First class Magistrate, at Banswada, Kamareddy District, for the offences under section 85 Bharatiya Nyaya sanhita (BNS) and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, quash the same against the petitioners. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section 52g of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be pleased to order stay of a[ further proceedings in connection with carendar case No.55 of 2025 in cr.No.S of 2025 of Nizamsagar porice statron, Kamareddy District, on the fire of the rearned Judiciar First crass Magistrate, at Banswada, Kamareddy District, for the offences under Section g5 of Bharatiya Nyaya sanhita (BNS) and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry prohibition Act, including their personal appearance pending the disposal of the main criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. v. RAJA SHEKAR REDDY AND vENKAT RAM REDDY, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. M.VIVEKANANDA REDDY, Additionar pubric prosecutor (TG) on beharf of the Respondent No.1 and Mr. T BALA MOHAN REDDY, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6O6O OF 2o25 ORDER: . This criminal petition is hled by the petitioners-accused No. 1 to 4 seeking Lhe Court to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.55 of 2025 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Bansrvada, Kamareddy District. The offences alleged agair-rst lhe pctitione rs are under Section 85 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Ior short 'BNS') and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short 'D. P.Act').

2. Thc cerse of the prosecution is that the complainant-2'd respondent lodged a complaint on 13.01.2O25 against the petitioners stating that on 30.O 1.2020, her marriage was performecl u,ith petitioner No.l-A. I as per the Christian custom and at the time of marriage, her parents gave Rs.6 Lakhs, one and half tula gold and home appliances. It is also stated that at the time of marriage , A. I u/as not having any job, but they lived happily for about two years and they were blessed with a baby boy. Later A. 1 got job in .l.L.M and thereafter [he husband and mother-in-law of 2"d respondent i.c., !"a peLitioner harassed her to bring extra dowry and warned her that if the 2n.l respondent failed to bring additional dowry, she w'ou ld 2 r perform another marriage to A. 1 with another woman. Subsequentl_v, the 2"d respondent was blessed with second son and at that time also the pelitioners harassed thc 2DCl respondent physically and mentally. Even though a panchayat rvas held before the elders, the attitude of A. 1 did not change. Further, the brother in-larv of 2"d respondent and his wife also harassed her saying that they will see her in Court as they are aware of the Acts and law. As such, requested the police to take action against the petitioners. Basing on the said compiaint, the police registered the case against the petitioners for the above offences-

3. Heard Sri V.Rajashekar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant public Prosecutor appearing for the 1.t respondent-State.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the allegations leveled against the petitioners are nothing but abuse of process of lau'. The petitioners-A.3 and A.4 are living separately and after getting job by A. 1 the 2"d respondent and A. 1 resided in a separate rental house away from A.2 to A.4, as such the question of subjecting the 2"4 respondent to harassment for want of additional dow'ry does not arise There r,vere some disputes between A_ 1 and 2"d respondent, even after setting Llp separate famill, an6 in this , -.'l- connection a panchayat was also held before elders and the 2"d respondent gave a written statement stating that A.2, A.3 and A.4 and father of A. I are not responsible for the quarrels between herself and A. 1. As such, the disputes between A. I and 2"d respondent pertain to other matrimonial disputes which are common. He further contended that 2"d respondent used to talk to her mother for hours [ogether and in the panchayat the elders decided that the cell phone of 2,.d respondent has to be taken away as the mother of 2"d respondent is the main cause for their quarrels. The marriage of A. 1 ald 2nd respondent is dowry free marriage as such there is no question of demanding additional dowry. Hence, prayed this Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2"d respondent would submit that there are clear allegations against the petitioners which require adjudication. There are specihc allegations against each accused, though petitioners stated that they are living separately, the address shown in the complaint and in the petition, are same As such, prayed to dismiss this petition

6. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel and the material on record the allegations against the accused are that I A.1 to A.4 used to harass 2"d respondent for additional dowry. Going through the said allegations, the specific allegations are against A. 1 and also A.2 who is the mother-in-law of 2"d responclent. In the statements of 2"d respondent- Lw- | and Lw.2 there are specihc a-llegations against A. 1 and A.2 antd the allegations against A.3 and A.4 are that they threatened the 2"d respondent that they are aware of the law- Except this allegation, there is no other allegation against A.3 and A.4 regarding harassment under Section 85 of BNS or under Section 3 and 4 of D.P.Act. As such, continuation of proceedings against A.3 and A.4 is nothing but abuse of process of law. Hence, the petition is liable to be quashed in respect of A.3 and A.4.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is partly allorved quashing the proceedings against petitioner Nos.3 and 4-A.3 and A.4 in C.C.No.SS of 2025 on the fiIe of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Banswada, Kamareddy District and thc petition in respcct of petitioner Nos.l and 2-A. 1 and A.2 is dismissed and the proceedings against them shall continue. Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed- SD/. A.PRATHIMA DEPUW REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, I

1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Banswada. (Call for Records) 2. fhe Station House Officer, Nizamsagar Police Station, Kamareddy Dist. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. [OUT] 4. One CC to Mr V. RAJA SHEKAR REDDY AND VENKAT RAM REDDY' Advocate. [OPUC]

5. One CC to Mr. T BALA l\ilOHAN REDDY, Advocate lOPUCl 6. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED: 2410712025 ,;R -rltE s 14 r(' !" 04 AUG 20ffi ti\.. r" --:: _.-_---:--/ ORDER CRLP.No.6060 of 2025 Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is parfly Allowed. t0