The High Court · 2025

This Petition coming on for hearing'upon perusino the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argumJnts of Sri K SAI BABU ,Advocate for the petitionei'ani ' Mr.Surepaili Pras-hanth Assistant the Public iioi on rerrari oi tn'e neiponoent No.1 and none for the Respondent t;;;;i;r No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER e!&.:':ai ..::i&. o I i I I I I i THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CRIIIINAL PETITI OI{ No.7OO9 oF 2025 ORDER: This Criminal petition is filecl under Section 52g of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short ,BNSS,) by petitioner/accused No.3 to quash the proceeclings against him in C.C.I.lo.59 of 2024 on the file of the XIII Addirional Chief Magistrate, Mahila Court, Hyderabad. The offences alleged against petitioner are uncler Sections 49BA and 406 of the Indian pena_l Code (for short ,IpCJ and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry prohibition Act, 1961 (for short ,Dp Act,). 2 Heard Mr. K. Sai Babu, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. surepalli prasha.th, learned Assistant pubric Prosecutor for respondent No.l/State. perused the material on record.

3. On basis of a complaint filed by responde nt No.2/d.e facto complainant, an FIR bearing |Jo.S13 of 2or2 came to be registered on 22.rr.2012 by the central crime police Station, Hyderabad District, for the offences punishable 2 JAK, .! CRLP 7009-2025 under Sections 498A and 406 of the IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the DP Act'

4. The gist of the complaint is that respondenl No'2lde facto complainant married to Mr' Naveeduddin Khan Uzair/accused No.1 on 14 'O2'2OO4 as per Muslim rites' It is allegedthatatthetimeofmarriage,12tulasofgold,4tulas of silver, Rs.50,000 of cash and other household articles were given as dowry' It is further alleged that from the date of marriage, her husband' her mother-in-law and her husband's younger brother used to torture her physically and mentally for not bringing enough dowry' There is an allegation that her husband used to consume liquor and ganj a and beat her' It is further alleged that her husband usedtothreatenherthathewouldmarryforsecondtime. lt is alleged in the complaint that respondent No'2's 5. mother-in-Iaw, who used to stay in United States' would call her and abuse her in filthy language and tortured her mentally and physically' That the verbal abuse of her mother-in-law caused respondent No'2 severe mental agony and physical pain. It is further alleged that an amount of . - :i:r' ,/' a I I I I I i I ) : 3 JAK, J CRLP 7009 2025 Rs.1,00,000/- was given as additional dowry to her husband That during the time of respondent No.2,s delivery, her husband performed seconcl mar-riagc in the month of June, 2010 and cheated her

6. It is a_iieged that accused No. i ,s second wife was working in an intcrnational school and it is only for the purpose of money, accused No.1 married Saima Abrar (second wife) and thereby cheated her as welr. That due to men tal torture, cruelty, harassment and physical abuse by her husband, husband,s younger brother, coupled with the fact of second marriage, respondent No.2 obtained Khula on O5.12-2OIO and since then she was staying in her parent,s house. That after Khula, respondent No.2 started working in Apollo Hospital at Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

7. It is further alleged that accused No.l/husband of respondent No.2 would visit respondent No.2,s place and used to request her to remarry. Ultimately, respondent No.2 agreed for remarriage. Accused No.l promised respondent No.2 that he wouid give divorce to Saima Abrar (his 2.d wife) and on 16.08-2012, respondent No.2 remarried accused No. r 4 JAK, J cRLP_7009_202s at Qazaath Office, Shah Ali Banda, Hyderabad' That respondent No.2's mother-in-law arrived in Hyderabad on I5.08.2OI2 and she promised respondent No'2 to look after her and children welfare' After remarriage, her husband's attitude became harsher. That her mother-in-law and her husband's younger brother also started to torture her and that she and her children were not provided vvith nutritious food, causing them to become rveak' Hence, the cornplaint' 8 A charge sheet came to be Iiled and it also reflects the g. CC.No.34 of 2Ol4 came to be heard and was dismissed by XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, by ,n order datecl O5'O2'2O25' The operative portion of the order is as follows: "24. PwS specihcally admitted that she did not hle aly proof before Court to show that they received receipts of gold ald silver orna-rnents' The prosecution fails to prove that the accused harassed PWI for demanding Additional Dowry' As discussed Supra the prosecution fails to prove guilty of A1 A2 under Section 4 ald 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act'

25. In the above facts and circumstances there is no evidence on record for establishing the guilt of Accused A1 ald A2 as they committed the offence as alleged by prosecution. So, the prosecution misarably fails to prove the guilty of Accused Al ald A2 beyond l I i 1 I I I I I I I I 5 JAK, J CRLP 7009 2025 al1 reasonable doubt. Case against A3 is Split up and given nerv C.C.S)/2024 ald szrme is pending.

26. In the result, the accused A1 and .A2 are found not guilSr for ttre offence punishable U /S 4gg_ A, 406 of Indian penal Code and Sec.4 and 6 of Dow4. Prohibition Act the accused nos. 1 and .A.2 are acqrritted u /s. 2a8[) cr.p.c. The bail bonds of the accused nos. I and ,A2 shall statrds carrceiled aJter srx months- "

10. Case against petitioner/accused No.3 uras split up and renumbered as CC.No.S9 of 2024. When this Court queried learned counsel as to whv the case was split up, it - /as stated across the Bar that pctitioner/accused No.3 was resiciing in Austra_lia, for the purpose of job/studies and as such, it was split up.

11. Learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on the order of the trial Court and submitted that the trail Court held that accused Nos. 1 and 2 were found not guilty for the offences under Sections 49BA arrd 406 of the IpC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dp Act. That as the complaint is same, FIR and charge sheet also same, the cha_rges against petitioner/accused No.3 be quashed i.e., the proceedings against him in C.C.No.59 of 2024 on the f,rle of the XIII l l I I i I i I ! i l r I j 6 JA(, J CRLP 7009_2025 AdditionalChiefMagistrate,MahilaCourt'Hyderabad'be quashed.

12. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that it is borne by record that CC'No'34 of 2Ol4 on the lrle of XIII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malrila Court, Hyderabad, is dismissed stating that accused Nos' 1 and 2 were found not guilty for the offences under the Sections 498A and 406 of the IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the DP Act. That for accused No'3 the case was split up for ttre very same offences and case was renumbered as CC.No.59 of 2024. l'earned Assistant Public Prosecutor furthersubmittedthatthecaseagainstpetitioner/accused No.3 be permitted to go on, as there are allegations against him.

13. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered riva-I submissions'

14. On last occasion, this Court directed learned Assistant Public Prosecutor to serve notice on respondent No'2' To that extent a memo has been hled by the Office of Public ProsecutorstatingthatnoticewassenttorespondentNo.2. ,l r I I I I I I I I .,i*' 7 JAK, J CRLP 7009 2025 In the notice dated lZ.O7.2O2S, it is r-elfected that mother of respondent No.2 was residing at the said residential address and she had ieceived t.he copy of notice and has endorsed that responder-rt No.2 is in Saudi A-rabia and that they are not in contact. In other words, there is no form of empow'erment to prosecute the case, further, of the ljke of Special Vakalth Holder.

15. Be that as it may, this Court has perused the complaint, FIR, charge sheet ald the iecord. No specific allegations are levelled against petitioner-/accused No.3. No allegations are forthcorrri,g abotrt the active involvement of petitioner/ accused No.3. No particularized allegations are borne frorn the record. Court of Competent Jurisdiction for the same set of allegations against accused Nos. i and 2 in cc No.34 of 2or4 by its order dated 05.02.2025 held that accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty tor the offences punishable under Sections 49gA and 406 of the IpC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dp Act. As the proceedings in the present criminal petition arise out of the same FIR and charge sheet and as there are no specific allegations against I JA]q J CRLP 7009 2025 petitioner/ accused No-3, the proceedings against petitioner/ accused No.3 are liable to be quashed' reasons aforesaid, proceedings against 16. For petitioner/accused No'3 in C.C.No'59 of 2024 on the hle of the XIII Additional Chief Magistrate, Mahila Court' Hyderabad, are herebY quashed.

17. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed' Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD7 AHMED ABDULLA KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Xlll Additional Chief Magistgrate, Mahila Court, Hyderabad' 2. The Station House Officer, P.S. Central Crime Station Hyderabad' 3. One CC to SRl. K SAI BABU Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to the ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR' High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies TUPSL n .=: S IA) 6 i)F\ 2s ruB 26 t) F. s P CT * \-1 6(' z a HIGH COURT DATED:04/08/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.7009 of 2O25 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION. 1 15 $