The High Court · 2025

Saroornagar, Rachakonda Police commissionerate,Throuigh Public prosecutor, High court, at hyderabad

2. Manchalla Soumya, Wo. Manchalla R R Bharadwaj D/o. Pothukuchi Ravi Prasad, Na.27 yrs, Occ.Software , R/o. H.No. 4-14110, Plot No. 70, Road No.6, lT-inivasapuram Colony, Gurramguda, Saroornagar, Nadargul (Rural), K. V. Rangareddy, T S-501510. ...RESPONDENTS 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 proceedings in C.C. No. 331712021 against the petitioner/A4 on the file of V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, L.B.Nagar R R District This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argurnents of Sri KATRAPATI SATYANARAYANA. Advocate for the Petitioner and E.GANESH Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.'l and of Sri J SUSHEEL KUMAR for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER THE HOIOURABLE SRI WSTICE E.V.!I )NUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.6251 of i O2L ORDER: This petition is filed under Sectiort 132 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the prc:eedings in CC No.3317 of 2O2l on the file of the V Additicr aJ Metropolitan Magistrate, L.B.Nagar, Cyberabad, R.R.Dist:' :t against the petitioner-accused No.4 for the offences under Section 498-A, 323, 406 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and Se< tion 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Heard Mr.K. Satyanarayana, learned ,: runsel for the petitioner, Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Pr,r rlic Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1- State

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 23.(.: .2021 at about

11.00 hours the de-facto complainant-Smt. M.Sowmya @ K.Sowmya lodged a complaint before the Sar< ornagar Police Station stating that on O1.O7 .2ola her marriagr: was performed with accused No.1 at Arya Samaj, Saidabad in Ihe presence of elders and after marriage, gifted some articlt: Thereafter, accused No.l who is her husband used to hari r s her with the instigation of accused Nos.2 to 4 w,ho are in-lau,; of the de-facto 2 EWJ CRL.P.No.625l of202l complainant. Out of the wedlock she was blessed witl. one baby child. Her husband used to take her entire salary and did not even provided basic amenities to her. Accused No. 1 used to beat her and abused her in lilthy language. All the belongings and educational certificates of the de-facto complainant were under the custody of accused No.l. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 are used to threaten her with dire consequences. Therefore, accused Nos. I to 4 committee the offences under Sections 498- A, 323, 406 and 506 of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. karned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after completion of investigation in this case, charge sheet has been laid on the hle of the V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, L.B.Nagar, Cyberabad, R.R District vide C.C No.33 17 tf 2O2l and the trial is pending. While trial is pending, the present petition is frled for quashment of the proceedings.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner rvhile drawing the attention of this Court would submit that the de-focto complainant got divorce from accused No.1 under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with mutual consent of accused No. I and the de-facto complainant ald in tle chief I I I 3 EWJ CRL.P.No.625l of202l evidence aJfrdavit filed before the learned r rial Court, the de-facto complainant at paragraph No.5 of ICOP No.lol of 2O2l on the file of the learned Judge, Fa:r ily Court, R.R. District, stated as under:

5. I submit tfat I sl@ll withdraw the cnmil i case filed agahst mV la6bard Bharaduaj and his familg me nbers tn CC No.3317 of 2021 on the file of V ACMM, Hgderabac R.R. Dstn:ct filed under Sedion 498-A, 323, 406 and 506 oJ IPC att' Sectron 4 of D.P Act bg refening it to Lak Adalat for dosing of the tc ;e.

6. The mutual divorce to accused No.l u r d the de-facto complainant has been granted by the learne I Judge, Family Court, R.R.District on 18.O1.2022. 7 . It is further submitted that notice has be: r served on the de-facto complainant, to that effect, he filed nr :mo of proof of service has been filed into the Registry'. There is no representation on behalf of the de-facto com r ainant neither before this Court nor before the trial Cour. to record the compromise, hence, seek to quash the proceedi rgs against the petitioner-accused No.4.

8. On the other hand, learned Assistant h.r rlic Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner has to appro,r :h the learned tria-l Court for recording compromise else filt the discharge \ petition. The petitioner approaching this Court is premature hence, seeks to dismiss this criminal petition. EyyJ CRL.P.No.625I of202t

9. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Iearned Assistant Public Prosecutor, upon perusal of the material before this Court, it is to be seen that ilre petitioner is accused No.4. Accused No.l, who is the husband of the de_ facto complainant and tbe de-facto complainant were grarted decree of divorce by the learned trial Court vide F.C.O.p No.l0l of 2027 on Lg.OL.2O22 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, R.R.District with mutua.l consent, wherein the de_facto complainant had voluntarily stated that she will withdraw the criminal case filed against her husband and his family members in CC No.331Z of 2O2l on the file of the V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magstrate, Cyberabad Iiled under Sections 498-A, A2S, 406 and 5O6 of IpC and Section 4 of D.p Act. Since, no steps have been taken by the de_facfo complainant to proceed further, notice was ordered to the de_facto complainant. The petitioner is facing hurdles tn career prospects due to pendency of tJee criminal petition. Under these circumstances, this Court is rel5ring on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in case of State of Haryana and. others v Bhajanla\ wherein the extraordinaqr porver under Articl e 226 of the '/ 5 EW,J CRL.P.No.6251 of 202 t Constitution of India or the inherent powers r_r rder Section 4g2 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the High Cor,rt to t revent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to se: rre the ends of justice. The guideline No.7 is extracted as unc( r: \

7. Wltere a uiminal proeedmq i.s nt nifestlg attended uith mata fidi and/ oi utlt, re the proceedtng i.s maltciously irstituted. taith an uLterior motiue for ureaking uellgean@ on the acctt.ed and with- a uieu to spite him-due to priuate and l ersonal grudge."

10. As per the guideline No.7 stipulated in tt e judgement of the Stcte of Haryana and. others (cited supra.l none of the ingredients in the case on hand would attr: lt against the petrtloner-accused. Therefore, this Court deerr r rt appropriate to quash the proceedings in CC No.33l7of 2O2 l, pending on the hle ol the learned V Additional Metropolitar Magistrate at L. B. Nagar, against the petitioner_accused No.4. 11 Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowe I Miscellaneous petitions, pending if an_r, shall stand closed. SD/- I TIRUMALA DEVI DE ] JTY REGISTRAR 6 /ffRUE COPY// SiI :CTION OFFICER To,

1. The V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, L B I agar R R District 2TheStationHouseOfficer,saroornagarWomenPoliceStzrlon'Saroornagar' Rachakonda District l I I I I I I j : i J

3. One CC to SRI KATRAPATI SAryANARAYANA Advocate IOPUC] 4. One CC to SRI J SUSHEEL KUMAR Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

6. Two GD Copies VM/GR ry, HIGH COURT DATED: 1010712025 OROER CRLP.No.6251 ot 2021 ,at-.t' ': ,. I 0! _t. .:i ,- ,,/ Ar ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION I \o t\ h \