The High Court · 2025

'1. The State of Telanoana Rep by its public prosecutor, High Court for the State of TelanganiHyderabad.

2. smt. sharikha shafiuilah, wo lVtohammed Kamaruddin Asram, Aged about 25 years, Occ. Student. F/o Ftat No.?01, H.tto.t2_ts_zsi, np*." ii;"-ij;;.,i,* Street No.3, Tarnaka, Hyderabad SbOOfT. ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS Petition under section 492 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be pleased to call for the records relating to charge sheet No.s044 of 2021on the fire of the Xlll Addl, chief luretropolitan Magistrate Hyderabad and quash the same l.A NO:1 oF 2021 -- r,- Petition under section 482 of cr.P.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorzrndum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the l-1igh court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including Exer:ution ol' Non Bailable warrant lssued by tle learned Magistrate on 19-03-2021. against the petitioners in charge sheet No.5()44 of 2021 on the file of the Xlll Addl. chief Metropolitan Magistrate Hyderabecl, pending disposal of the present quash petition' This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing ther emorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri D SUDHARSHAN ,Advocate for the Petitioner and sri E.Ganesh, the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.'1 ancl none a cpeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made th(r following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JU CE E.V.VENUGOPAL Criminal Petition No.6057 OF 2021, ORDER: This criminal petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C, is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.5044 of 202t on the file of the Court of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Section 498-4 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2 Heard Ms.Jyotsna, learned counsel representing Mr.D.Sudharshan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3 The facts that lead to the filing of the present petition, in nutshell, are that the second respondent (Smt.Sharikha Shafiullah) filed a report before the police stating that the marriage of the first petitioner was performed with the second respondent. At the time of marriage the parents of the second respondent gave substantial amount of cash, gold ornaments and other household articles to the petitioners towards dowry. Sometime after the marriage, the first petitioner, at the instance and instigation of the other petitioners, stafted harassing the second respondent for additional dowry of Rs.20.00 lakhs to invest the same in his business to which the 2 second responderrl did not agree. The first petitioner used t,o threaten the second respondent. that unless she gets the additional dowry as demanded by them, he would go for divorce. Not able to bear with harassment both physically and m<:ntally, the second respondent lodged a complaint before the police with thr: above allegations.

4. On receipt of the same, the Women P.S. CCS, DD, Hyderabad, registered a cas€ in Cr.No.734 of 2019 for the above offertces and after conducting investigation the police filed charge sheet, which was taken on file for the offences punishable under sections 498-4 of IPC ilnd sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act and was numbered as C.C' No.5044 of

2021. During the course of investigation, police have trieri t.o serve notice under Section 4la. of Cr.P.C. against the petitioners herein under property acknowledgment since the petitioners are in 'absconding'. t was in vain. Thereby, NBWs vrrere issued against the petitioners.

5. During ther pendency of the above criminal petition, this Court directed notice tc, the second respondent through the Station House Officer concerned. Learrred Assistant Public Prosecutor has produc,:d the written instructions of the Station House Officer concerned wherein it was stated that when police tried to serve notice on the second respondent to the address mentioned in the cause title of this petition, it was returned with an endorsement 'no such person in the given address'. Therr, police have 9 served the notice on the second respondent through Whats app, but no response

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners, besides filing written arguments, submitted that the second respondent filed the above complaint only to harass the petitioners and they are falsely implicated in this case. It is her further submission that the petitioners are residing in abroad and as per the allegations of the second respondents, no offences were make out in India, thereby, no Court shall take cognizance of any offence alleged to have committed outside the local limits of the jurisdiction and that the Investigating Officer failed to secure prior sanction from the State Government. Accordingly, she prayed to quash the proceedings against all the petitioners in C.C.No.5044 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

7. Learned counsel placed reliance on the case laws in support of her case as follows: t) Thota Venkateshwailu v, Andhra Pradesli; ii) Rajesh Gupta v. State of Andhra PradesF; and iii) Lalitha Kumari v. Government of lt.P.3 1 20'11 (9){C 527 , 2011 (1) ALD (Crl) 885 AP 3 2014(2){C'l 4

8. On the other hand, learned Assistant public prosecutor appearing for the state submilled that since the date of registration of crime the petitioners are nol- cooperating with the investigating agency, the police are unable to serve trotice under Section 41A of Cr.p.C. anrl l.o secure the presence of the petitioners the trial court has issued NBWs ;against them. However, suppressing the said facts, the petitioners have filed the present petition seeking quash of the proceedings before the trial c.ourrt. Therefore, the proceedinqs cannot be quashed. 9. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan La!3, the Ape>: Court cautioned that power of quashing should be exercised very sparingly and c rcumspection and that too in th(l rarest of rear cases. while exiamining a complaint, quashing of which is sough! Court cannot embark upon an i:nquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or in the complaint. The Apex court in the said judgme:nt raid down certain guidelines/parameters for exercise of powers under ller.tion - 4g2 of Cr.P.C., which are its under: "(1) Where the allegations made in the first informal:ion report or the complaint, even if they are taken ert their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 5 (2) Where the allegations in the first information repoft and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifuing an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific 6 provis on in the Code or Act concerned, pro''ricing efficac:ious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) V/here a criminal proceeding is manife:;tly attenc erd with mala fide and/or tryhere the procet:rJing is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motivr: for wreaking vengeance on the accused ,rnd with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudg:." The said principle was reiterated by the Apex Court irr catena of decisions.

10. Having gorre through the entire material produced bef,lre this Court, this Court is of tire opinion that the petitioners are not entitled to the relief sought for, for th: reasons given herein below.

11. As seen fr:m the record, the complaint of tte second respondent shows about the llegal demands of the first petitioner at the instance of the other petitioners and it would also reveal that the first petitioner and the second respondent resided in India at Hyderabacl as wifer and husband. Further, on the face of the record, it depicts that the petiticners have not been cooperating with the investigating agency at any point of time during the course of investigation. Now, suppressing the fact th,at issuance of NBWs against thr: petitioners, they have filed the present. petition seeking to quash the pr,tceedings pending against them before the trial Court. I ; I t I 7 Prima facie, it is axiomatic that the ailegations revefled against the petitioners are very serious in nature and they have impact on the society at large. The truth or otherwise wourd be reveared onry after fuil-fledged trial, therefore, this Court considers that the present petition seeking to quash the proceedings is liable to be dismissed. 72' In the result, criminar petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners are permitted to file an application before the trial court to recall the NBWs pending against them. Further, the petitioners are at liberty to agitate the contentions and grounds raised in the criminar petition before the triar court and avail the appropriate remedies, in accordance with raw. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this criminar petition shail arso stand dismissed. To, //TRUE COPY// o.'P,i#??B,l'#11k "."rrkrrr"r*

1. The Xlll Addl. Chief Metropotitan Magistrate Hyderabad 2. The Station House Of I ;x :su:* ;[r,gdstffi ffi lri,,;:,?x:0"td,,, Tpk l l HIGH COIJRT DATED i2010212025 vJi' -:-\ ' TS/ \ r.,, ),c\ 7\\ ),\ t i., )l :) l-. f'_ .a&t s., .\.t ss\- ,:/ ,.) +Hf ORDER CRLP.No.6057 of 2021 i i I I i I ,) I CRIMINAI- PETITION IS DISMISSED g D/