The High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana, through S.H.O., P.S. W.P.S Saroornagar, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Ranga Reddy District, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT.

2. Poloju Shruthi, Wo. Katakam Sandeep, Age- 32 Years, Occ- Student, R/o. H.No. 34-176, Masjid Lane Road, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO.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 charge sheet in C.C.No. 7905 of 2019, on the file of Honble V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at L. B. Nagar, as against the petitioners/Accused No s. 2 to 5. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 482 ot 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 of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 5, in C.C.No.7905 of 2019, on the file of HonbleV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad. This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K VENUMADHAV ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Assistant Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PEIITION No.553O of 2O2O ORDER: This criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners to quash the charge sheet in c.c.No.7905 of 2019 on the file of the learned v Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, as against the petitioners - accused Nos.2 to S.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the de facto complainant on oB.1 1.2019 at 10:3o hours todged a complaint stating that she was married to petitioner - A1 in the presence of both sides' elders and parents. on demand of A1 and his parents (A2 & 43 herein), her parents offered them a dowry of Rs.2O,OO,OOO /- towards gold, furniture and clothes and Rs.S,OO,OOO l- besides of the above arra.ngements. Their engagement was performed on O2.O4.2OL7, and was later cancelled on 21.03.2018 due to misunderstandings raised by A1 and his family members. Later, the petitioner - A1 requested them to forgive him and the.ir parents for the said cancellation of engagement. But, the de facto complainant and her parents could not detect their evil mind, which is the reason of irretrievable break down of marriage. After her marriage, they started living together and stayed jointly for a period of three 2 months. Thereafter, he started harassing her and used to beat her severely and she was necked out of her house and was demanded to bring an arnount of Rs.25,00 ,OOO /- towards additional dc,wry and was having life threat from her husband. Her parents tried to pacify the issue, but there is no response from her husband and his parents. Accordingly, the complaint is filed against him to take necessary action against her husband and in-laws.

3. On receipt of the above complaint, the police registered a case in Crime No.345 of 2019 for the offence under Sections 498-A,323,504 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the un-official respondent and the learned Assistant Pub1ic Prosecutor for the respondent - State.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners - A2 to A5 submits that apart from the general claim that they supported the case of A1, no specific allegations have been levelled against them. There I are no substantive or direct allegations regarding their involvement in the commission of any offence or criminal activity. The de facto complainant, in her initial complaint lodged with the Police, did not mention the names of 3 petitioners - A2 to A5. It is only in 161 Cr.P.C. statements recorded on 08.1L.2OL9 by the Sub-Inspector of Police, K.Malleshwari, at Saroornagar, Rachakonda, that the names of the petitioners have been introduced. However, the inclusion of the names of the petitioners in the 161 Cr.P.C. statements alone does not establish their guilt. It may simply reflect their associated with other accused, but this should not be construed at substaltive evidence of criminal conduct. The complainant has alleged that A4 and A5, in conjunction with A1 to A3, harassed her. However, the petitioners A2 to A5 are only connected to the case by their association with the primary accused. There is no direct evidence linking the petitioners to the specific acts of harassment or criminal conduct that form the basis of the complaint. The allegations against them are vague and lack specificity. In the absence of clear, direct allegations or evidence, the petitioners should not be forced to und.ergo trial based on such general statements. As such, seek indulgence of this Court to allow this Criminal Petition.

6. Opposing the sarne, learned counsel for un-official respondent submits that the Police have thoroughly conducted the investigation, during which witnesses LWs.l to 7 were examined, and their statements duly recorded. Learned counsel emphasizes that it is premature for tf{9 Court to intervene at 4 .--\l this stage, as the trial court has the authority to evaruate these altegations in details. Furthermore, learned corrnsel notes that the petitioners, after being served with 4r-A notices and following the registration of the crime, have not approached this court earlier, rryhich could impty that they have, no substantial grounds to challenge the allegations at this poinr. In any event, the counsel argues, the trial court is the appropriate forum to examine the veracit5r of the facts, and through. proper legal proceedings, the truth will inevitable come to light. In light of these submissions, the counsel vehemently opposes the petition and prays for the dismissal of the petition.

7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that unless and until the truth of the allegations is fully elicited through a thorough investigation and trial, interference at this premature stage is unwarranted and prays this court to dismiss the criminal Petition, as it is premature and should not be adjudicated upon until all facts and evidence have been examined by the trial court.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and the learned Assistant Public prosecutor and upon perusing the material before this court, including the 161 cr.p.c. statements of the de facto complainant, it is observed that while detailed 5 allegations have been made against A1, the statements concerning A2 and A3 merely indicate that they supported the actions of A1. As for A4 and A5, the 161 Cr.P.C. statements do not attribute any specific actions to them, with the allegations remaining vague and lacking substance in respect of their involvement.

9. Further upon considering the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lall, Shiv Kumar Yadav v. State of NCT of Delhi2, Rukmini Nanrekar v. Vijaya Satardekar3, Narayana v. State of Maharashtra+, which held that bald and omnibus allegations, without specifics, cannot form the basis for criminal liability, this Court finds it necessar5r to examine whether the material presented justifies the exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It is evident that the allegations against the petitioners (A2 to A5) are not substantiated by any specific facts of details but are merely general statements, with no concrete accusation directed at them. The names of the petitioners are only mentioned in 161 Cr.P.C. statements, without any further elaboration or direct involvement in the alleged offence. This Court finds no substantive allegations or evidence tinking A2 to A5 to the I I I I '1tssz1 1 scc 33s '1zoto'12 scc 4o2 '(2008) 14 scc 1 o lzots; 6 scc 412 6 prosecution in C.C.No.7905 of 2019. The vague nature of the allegations against the petitioners, coupled with t.he absence of specific overt acts, does not justify continuing the proceedings against them. In the light of the lack of specific allegations and evidence, this Court deems it appropriate to pa-tially allow the Criminal Petition and quash the proceedings against the petitioners - A4 and A5 only in C.C.No.79O5 of 2019, pending before the learned V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar.

10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed in part, the proceedings a-re hereby quashed in so far as A4 and A5 (petitioner Nos.3 and 4) are concerned arising otrt of the Crime No.345 of 2019 dated 08.11.2019 for the offences under Sections 498-A,323,504 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dorvry Prohibition Act on the file of the Saroornagar WPS. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this petition, if any, shall stand closed. SoI- a.N.S.GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY'/ i I \ I SECTION OFFICER ,j To,

1. The V Additional Metr,opolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar. --t I I I I

2. The station House officer P.S. w.P.s saroornagar, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Ranga Reddy District'

3.oneCCtoSRl.KVENUMADHAVAdvocate[oPUCI 4. Two ccs to ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High court at Hyderabad. IOUTI

5. Two CD CoPies TUPSL Lb HIGH COURT DATED:01 l,0812025 , I -u I I ORDER CRLP.No.5530 of 2020 o ( t -r i4.E. S i ..,r i.4 ?2 lll8l, 20fr 1)i:Sp.^.TC (:' I .t // PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION. sl tt v\