High Court · 2025

2. Smt. Maniza Shaaz, D/o Mohd. Omer, Age about 29 years, Occ. Private Service, Rio 5-4-615/A, Old Kattalmandi, Nampally, Hyderabhad. Ph No.9533233618. ...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 C.C.No.2272 12019 on the file of the Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Subhani S M, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad on behalf of the State. The Court made the following: ORDER: THE HONIOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRI IVIINAL PETITION No.4981 OF 2019 ORDER: Th is Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., bj, tix petitioners/ accused Nos.2 and 3, to qr.rash the proceedings irL C.C.No.2272 of 2019, pending on ttre file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nrempally, Hyderatrad, fo - the offences punishable under Sections 498-4, 406 of I P.C., :rnd Sections 4 and 6 of D.P.Act.

2. Re,spondent No.2/Smt.Maniza Shaaz, is the wife of accused No. L. The marriage of accused No.1 rvith res;pondent No.2 \I.as pr:rformed on O5.O8.2O17, an<l a d,rwry of Rs.2,00,0001-, 20 tulas of gold, other furniture, and electronic iter:rs, were given at the time of marria1,1e. Soon after the marriage, respondent No.2 started staying in the house of the accused Nos.l and 2. According to res;pondent No.2, a<:cused No. 1 and accused No.2/petitioner No..[ herein, started haras sing her physically and mental1y O\i er petty issues. Petitioner No.1 used to taunt her by saying that the weddinS; hostr:d by her parents was not upto the nrark. On 2

26.09.201.7, accused No.l/husband and petitioner No.1 beat respondent No.2 with a broomstick. Even, when she conceived, she was not allowed to take proper food and rest. Petitioner No.1 purposely removed the maid, and respondett No.2 was asked to do all the household chores. On

03.O2.2O18, accrlsed Nos.1 and 2 prohibited respondent No.2 from entering into the house, since she came late from her parents' house. Further, accused No. 1 alleged that respondent No.2 had taken gold ornaments to her mother,s house, however, all the gold ornaments were in possession of accused No.2/mother-in,law. Thereafter, she went to her parents' house and gave birth to a child. None of the petitioners and accused No.1 met respondent No.2, even after the delivery. Further, accused No. 1 filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights on 09 .O9 .2018, and the notice was received on 1 1.09.2018 by respondent No.2. Thereafter a complaint was filed with the police on 1O.11.2018.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that bald and general allegations are leveled against the petitioners herein. In view of such vague and bald allegations, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 3 Kc,hkc,shan .Kausar @;, Sonam qnd othbrs u. State of Bihort, held that, unless there are specific and distinct allegations aEainst the accused, the proceedings can be quasheii. Und:r Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Court should be careful .n pror:eeding against the relatives, who are roped in on the basis ol vague and omnibus allegations 4 . In the present case, specific allegations ar e made against petit.ioner No.1/mother-in-law that, she b,:at and abused respor dent No.2 physically and mentally and also did not allorv resprndent No.2 into the house. The grouncis raised by the learncd counsel for the petitioners; thal , a false complaint was Iiled only after filing of tl-ie petition for restitution of r;onjugal rights, cannot form basis to qrLash the proceedings, insofar as petitioner No.1/accused No.2 is concernecl.

5. However the allegation against petitioner No.2/ accused No.3 is that he has abetted accused No.1 to harass respondent Nc .2. Such vague allegation, cannot form basis to ' lzozzy e sr:c soe 4 continue prosecution, insofar as petitioner No.2/accused No.3 is concerned.

6. Keeping in view that petitioner No.l/accused No.2 iS aged about 73 years, her attendance shall be dispensed with the following conditions: i) Petitioner No. 1 shall always be represented by the counsel on record ii) She shall file an affidavit stating that in her absence, the proceedings conducted by the counsel wiil not be disputed by her in any manner, and she shall not dispute her identity iii) She shall appear before the learned Magistrate as and when her presence is required. In the event of petitioner No. 1, failing to appear when the Court directs, this order dispensing her attendance shall stand cancelled.

7. The proceedings against petitioner No.2/accused No.3 in C.C.No.2272 of 2OI9 on the frle of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, are quashed. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is partly allowed. 5 Miscellarreous applications pending, if any, sl-rerll stand closed. Sdi- MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \tcrtoH oFFtcER To, 1 J 4 t The Xlll Additio ral chief Mekopolitan Magistrate at Nampally. flyderabad The Station Hotlse Officer, Women P S CCS ' Hyderabad One CC to Sri iubhani S M' Advocate [OPUC] One CC to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Te'langana' Hyderabad. [Ol.JT] Two CD CoPies . PSK /PSL d HIGH COURT DATED:28102112025 ORDER GRLP.No.4981 of 2019 .-1e oF T€( 1, k, l). :' ':r,. {$ -.t \" ..\ +.1 .$' \ ! PARTLY ALI,()WED THE CRIMINAL PETITION [{" ^ cdl.\