The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/respond ent No.4 to 7 in DVC No.02 of 2025, on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge cum I Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Gajwel, Siddipet District. ...Respondent a LA. NO: 2 O F 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that i the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petitior, the High court may be oleased to stay all further proceedings including th'-' appearance of the oetiiion ers/resoond ent No.4 to 7 till the disposal of the qt rsh petition in DVC iilo 02 of 2025. on the file of I Additional Junior Civil .lr dge cum I Judicial Ivlagistrate of First Class at Gajwel, Siddipet District. CRIMINAL PETITlo N NO: 7749 OF 2O25:. Between s: 'l Shvamsundar Palle, S/o.Manohar, Age 45 Years, )cc Employee, R/o. OiiOepatty Village, Palakurthi Mandal, Zattergadh Warzrr gal- 506316. 2 Shireesha Palle, Wo.Shyamsundar palle, Age 40 Yeats Occ Housewife R/o. - oiraeoattv Village, Palakurthi Mandal, Zaffergadh Wz r tngal- 50631 6. (Both ire prbseiity Fl/o. Uganda, East Africa. ) ...Petil oner/Accused I & 9 AND I Smt. Adi Deeksha @ Thota Deeksha, Wo T Aoe zg Vears, Occ House wife, R/o H. No. 1 Villaoe and Mandal, Siddipet District, Telang 9441n46991 . Email lD Vedavyasadi@gmail. . Mohan KLrr rar, D/o. Adi Jagan, - 42, Main i :ad, Douulthabad ana- 5O22t:,. Ph. No.

2. The State of Telangana, Rep by Public Prosecutor, Higl Court at Hyderabad ...Respondent Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in tho ;ircumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, th€, High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/resp lndent No.8 and 9 in DVC No. 02 of 2025, on the file of lAdditional Junior Civil ludge cum I Judicial tvlagistrate of First Class at Gajwel, Siddipet District. l.A. NO:2 O F 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that il the circumstances stated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, ll: High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including the appearance of the petitioners/respond ent No.8 and 9 till the disposal of the quas ) petltion in DVC No. O2 of 2O25, on the file Of I Additional Junior Civil Judge cum I Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Gajwel, Siddipet District. I I i CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7756 OF 2025: Between: Smt Thota Annapurna, w/o.Thota Rajendar Aged about 62 Years. Occ- House wife R/o. H.N.o. 1-1-103/8 B, Roaci No.8/2, Opp. NIT Warangal 1st Gate, Chaitanyapuri Colony- Prashanth Nagar, Kazipet Mllage and Mandal, Warangal Urban Dist., Telangana-506003 Sri Thota Rajender, S/o.Sathaiah, Aged- 68 Years, Occ- Retd, R/o. H N o 1- 1-103/8/8, R'oad No.8/2, Opp. NIT Warangal 1st Gate, Chaitanyapuri Colony Prashanth Nagar, Kazipet Village and Mandal, Warangal Urban Dist, Telangana-506003. 2 ...Petitioner/Respondent No.2 & 3 AND 1 Smt.Adi Deeksha @ Thota Deeksha, W/o T.Mohan Kumar , D/o. Adi Jagan, Aoe- 29 Years, Occ- House wife, Rl/o H.No. 1-42, Main Road , Douulthabad Vi-ltage and Mandal, Siddipet District, Telangana-502247. Ph. No. 9441046991 . Email lD- Vedavyasadiegmail-com The State of Telangana, Rep by Public Prosecutor. High Court at Hyderabad ...Respondent Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings agatnst the petitioners/respondent No.2 and 3 in DVC No.02 of 2025, on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge cum I Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Gaiwel, Siddipet District. l.A. NO:2OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including the appearance of the petitioners/respondent No.2 and 3 till the disposal of the quash petition in DVC No.02 of 2025, on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge cum I Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Gajwel, Siddipet District. These Petitions coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitions and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K. Rajashekar, Advocate for the Petitioners and Ms.Madhavi Assistant Public Prosecutor Rep.by Nageshwar Rao Pujari on behalf of the Respondent No.2 and None appeared for the Respondent No.1 in CRLPS. a The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER TN THE HIGH COURT FOR TIIE STATE OF "ELANGANA AT IIYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VEII UCTOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION N os.7744 7749 alrd,7', 56 of 2025 Dated: 11.12.2o25 Criminal Petition No.7744 of 20,25 Between: Nayini Keshav and three others )etitioners And Smt. Adi Deeksha @1 Thota Deeksha and another le spondents Criminal Petition No.7749 of 2O2Z i Between: Shyamsundar Palle and another Petitioners And Smt. Adi Deeksha @ Thota Deeksha and another ... lespondents Between: Criminal Petition No.775 6 of 2o2it', Smt Thota Annapurna and another )etitioners And Smt. Adi Deeksha @ Thota Deeksha and another I lespondents ) COMMON ORDER Criminal Petition No.7744 of 2025 is frled by petitioners/ respondent Nos.4 to 7 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in D.V.C.No.O2 of 2025 on the lile of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-l Judiciat Magistrate of First Class at Gajwel, Siddipet District (for short, "the trial Court").

2. Criminal Petition No.7749 of 2025 is filed by petitioners/ respondent Nos.8 and 9 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in D.V'C.No.O2 of 2025 on the file of the tria-l Court and pass such other order or orders.

3. Criminal Petition No.7756 of 2025 is filed by petitioners/ respondent Nos.2 and 3 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in D.V.C.No.O2 of 2025 on the file of the tria-l Court and pass such other order or orders. For the sake of convenience, the facts in Crl.P'No'7744 of 2025 are discussed as hereunder:-

4. Heard Mr.K.Rajashekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.2-Sta o

5. This Court vide order dated 09.09.2012 > directed the Registry to take appropriate steps to facilita'.r for mediation between the parties to be conducted before Hcr 'ble Sri Justice P.Naveen Rao (retired) on 1O.O9.2025. On t 5.11.2025, the mediation sessions rvere conducted but the parti:s did not agree for settlement of dispute. Therefore, the m: liation became "unsuccessful". Hence, this Court decided to p oceed u'ith the matter on merits.

6. The brief facts of the case are that the nr rriage between respondent No. 1 and her husband was solemniz<:'l on 24.72.2O2O as per Hindu rites and customs at Hyndava Gal rik Convention, Kompatly, Hyderabad. It is stated that the parerr s of respondent No.1 gave gold ornaments worth 58 tulas, an amount of Rs.15,00,O00/ in cash, 2-3 kgs of silver articl,:; at the time ol marriage and gave Rs. 1,00,000/- to the s;i ;ter-in-1aw's of respondent No. I . It is further stated that the cott rle r,r,ere blessed with a baby girl out of their wedlock. It is allegec that the family members of respondent No.1's husband su rjected her to domestic violence. Aggrieved thereby, respor-^ ( ent No.1 filed D.V.C. against the petitioners herein seeking p rotection order, resi(nce order, monetary relief etc. I .- \-- \ * Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner Nos.1 and 3 are brother-in-laws and petitioner Nos.2 and 4 are sister-in-lan,s of respondent No.1. He states that respondent No. I 'and her husband shifted to Australia on 23.O8.2O21 ano that the petitioners were residing in India. He avers that there is no specific instance of domestic violence or harassment alleged within the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate a-fter the said date ald mere phone calls from India cannot constitute "domestic violence' under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, "the Act"). g. He contends that the petitioners being the distant relatives did not reside in the shared househoid at any point of time as per Section 2(s) of the Act and hence, initiating DVC proceedings against the petitioners are misconceived. He further submits that no criminal case or FIR has been registered against the petitioners and respondent No.1 had hled the DVC case basing on vague and omnibus allegations. Relying on the decisions passed by the Hcn'ble Supreme Court in Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi Vs. Vidhi Rawalr, Shyamlal Devda and Others Vs. Parimalaz, decision passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh I Criffina't"Appeat No.2688 of 2025 212020) 3 Supreme Court Cases 14 ) at Amaravati in Mora Vs. State of A.P. and Ctl herss, decision passed by this Court in Giduthuri Kesari Kumar and others Vs. State of Telangana Rep. by Public Prosecuto:r and anothera, the decision passed b-v High Court of Bomba,.' in Dhananjay Mohan Zornbade Vs. Prachis, he seeks to quasl the impugned proceedings. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor sub rrits that the 9 matter requires to be tried and only upon conclus.on of trial, the truth comes to light. Therefore, she seeks tr dismiss this Criminal Petition tO. Having regard to the submissions of bc,1 h the learned counsel arrd on perusal of the material available tn record, this Court is of the opinion that distant relatives who have no domestic relationship are roped in the preser.t case only to harass them, which is abuse of process of law. r\ perusal of the complaint show s that there is no specific aver nent that the petitioners had lived with respondent No.1 at anl point of time. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that n r specihc and distinct aJlegations are made out agajnst the pet tioners herein and in the absence of anv specihc role attr buted to the r 2024 SCC Onl-ine AP 1769 4 2015 SCC Onl-ine Hvd tB 5 2023 SCC Ont-ine Bom 1607 l l 6 petitioners herein it rvould be unjust if they are forced to go through the tribulations of the trial. 10 Hence, this Court is inclined to allow these L-riminal Petition Ncs.7l44 of 2O2S and, ZT49 of 2025, by quashing the proceedings in so far as the petitioners/ respondent Nos.4 to 9 are concerned, in D.V.C.No.O2 of 2025 on the hle of the learned I Additiona'l Junior civil Judge-cum-I Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Gajwel, Siddipet District. 1L. Further, in view of serious allegations levelled against petitione'rs/respondent Nos.2 and 3 in D.V.C.No.O2 of2O25, this Court is inclined to direct the trial Court to proceed with trial. Accordingly, Criminal petition No.7756 of 2O2S is dismissed. However, the appearance of the petitioners/respondent Nos.2 and 3 in D.V.C.No.O2 of 2O2S is dispensed with on each and every adjournment subject to filing an alhdarrit by the petitioners/ respondent Nos.2 and 3 stating that in their absence, the proceedings conducted by their counsel will not be disputed by them in any marlner. The petitioners sha-ll appear before the trial Court as and when specifically required failing which, this order dispensing with their appearance stands vacated automatically. Needless to mention, the petitioners are grarted liberty to work +^.- 1 out the remedies as available under larv ir-r,: uding filing of discharge application before the trial Court. It is nade clear, this order shall not preclude the trial Court from par;r ing appropriate orders as per iaw.

13. Accordingly, Crl.P.Nos.7744 and 7749 of '.1 )25 ate allowed and Crl.P.No.7756 of 2025 is dismissed Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any', sha I stand closed. sd/- As$ . OSMAN ALI BAIG ANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ CTION OFFICER To,

1. The I Additional Junior Civil Judge cum I Judicial Magis rate of First Class at Gajwel, Siddipet District.

2. One CC to Sri K.Rajashekar, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Nageshwar Rao Pujari, Advocate [OPUo 4. Two CD Copies Svs/DL -T1, ^ J r.) HIGH COURT DATED:1 111212025 ' rlE .tj ;ir,/€ JAN 2026 Y ( o )- COMMON ORDER CRLP.No.7744,7749 AN D 7756 of 2025 a ALLOWING THE CRLP NOs. 7744 andtt 49 of 2025 AND DISMISSING THE CRLP NO.7756 OI:2025. --Ti - /- J tr,5 l,^