The High Court · 2025

'1. State of Telangana, through Public Prosecutor, High Court of Hyderabad, through Siddipelll Town Police Station, Siddipet,

2. Smt. Chetlapally ltluthyalamma, Wo. Balraju, Aged about 44 years, Occ. House Wife, R/o. H. No.18-'19-63/4, Kushal Nagar, SiddipetTown. ...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the C.C.No.914 ol 2019, on the file of the Honble JFCM, at Siddipet dated 30-08-2019 in Crime No.11'1l2019, dated 30-06-2019, u/Sec. 4984 lPC, 3 and 4 of DP Act on the file of Police Station Siddipet ll Town against the Petitioner / Accused No. 4. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2020 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P -C 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 C.C.No.914 of 2019, on the file of the Honble JFCM, Siddipet, dated 30-08-2019 in Crime No.111/2019, dated 30-06- 2019, u/Sec. 49BA lPC, 3 and 4 of DP Act on the file of Police Station Siddipet ll Town against the Petitioner / Accused No. 4 including the arrest, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri SUDARSHAN MALUGARI ,Advocate for the Petitigner and Sri. VIVEKANDNA REDDY, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and of Sri. G. SANJIV REDDY, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.464O of 2O2O ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under llection 482 of Cr.P.C., by the petitioner/ accused No.4, to quash the proceedings l in C.C.No.914 of 2019, on the hle of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Siddipet, for the offences punishable under Section 498-4 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.4 and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Asr;istant public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State. Perused the record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that one Sai prasanna (hereinafter referred to as 'the victim'), who is the daughter of the de facto complainant/respondent No.2, was married to accused No.1 on l3.I2.2OIa. At the time of marriage, gc,ld ornaments, cash, ald other household articles were given as dowry. After the marriage, she started living with her in-laws. Hou,r:ver, 5 months prior to the complaint, the parents-in-law and the petitioner herein, who is the sister of accused No.1, started harassing the victim both physically and mentally on the ground that if the accused No.1 had married logeone else, he wou..d have gotten i 2 ., 1-1 more dowry. On 21.06.2019, a panchayat was held before the elders, and the elders convinced both sides to look after the victim, i.e., the wife of the accused No.1, properly. On

22.06.2019, the victim, vexed with her life due to her in-laws' behavior, jumped from the 2"d floor building-of her house, due to which both her legs were fractured, and she was admitted to Sunshine Hospital, Secunderabad. Hence, the 2"a respondent lodged a complaint before the Siddipet II Town Police Station.

4. After the investigation, the Police filed a charge-sheet. One Mutyalamma/mother of the victip (LW. 1), Balraju/father of the victim (LW.2l, and Sai Prasanna (victim) were examined during the course of the investigation and their statements were recorded. In their statements, the allegation was about the harassment by accused Nos.1 to 3. However, insofar as the petitioner herein is concerned, only vague and omnibus allegations are made that she also harassed the victim. No circumstance or any specific event is narrated by any of the witnesses in their statements. Admittedly, the petitioner was a student when the marriage of the accused No.l and the victim took place, and also when the complaint was filed. Jr i /,' ,/;, /a 3

5. In Kahkashan Ko:usar @ Sonam and others a. State of Bihart, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in the absence of specific and distinct allegations against the accused, the proceedings can be quashed. Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Court should be careful in proceeding against relatives who are implicated solely on the basis of vague and omniL,us allegations. I l

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Preeti Gupta a. Stqte of Jharkhandz, held that the Courts must scrutinize the allegations with great care and circumspec:tion, especially against the husband's relatives who reside in different cities and have rarely visited or stayed with the couple. 7 . The basis for including the petitioner herein as an accused is only the allegation that she also use,f to harass the victim. In the absence of any specific allegaticns against the petitioner, the question of continuing the proceedrngs against the petitioner does not arise.

8. Therefore, the proceedings in C.C.No.914 of 2Ol9 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Siddipet, are quashed. Accordingl5,, the Criminal Petition is allowed. '1zozz1 o scc sss '1zoro1z scc ooz 4 Miscellaleous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. i I To, //TRUE COPY// SD/- N. RAJAGOPAL DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court at Siddi 2. The Station House Officer, Siddipet ll TN Police Station, Siddipet. 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 4 One CC to SRI SUDARSHAN MALUGARI Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRl. SANJIV REDDY G. Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies. PM/gh HIGH COURT DATED:10/03/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.4640 ol 2020 ( e J o ,J .{tlF- S I.l 14: 2 I Jtjt'l M ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION. ( // 5