The High Court · 2025

d Mr. Nimma Narayana, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 3, Criminal Petition No. 7720 ol 20 4 has been filed by Accused No. 1, while Criminal Petition No. 7882 of 024 has been filed by Accused No. 2. As both petitions arise out of the same criminal proceedings and involve common questions of fact and law, they'are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

4. The respondent No.2 is lhe de fac complainant, in the underlYing criminal case. For the sake of convenien and clarity, the petitioners are hereinafter referred to as 'the Accused No. I ' and 'the Accused No. 2' I ) NTR. ] CRLPs_7720 & 7882_2024 5(a). The respondent No.2 (hereinafter "the complainant") filed a private complaint asserting that she is the legally wedded wife of Accused No,1 , having been married to him in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage, she was only 13 years old and dispute that tender age, she joined the matrimonial home. From the outset, Accused No.1 exhibited a domineering, obstinate, and abusive nature. His parents treated her as a domestic servant 5(b). Subsequently, Accused No.1 relocated the family to Baroda while undergoing training in Railway Department. The couple did not bear any children during the marriage. This led to persistent verbal abuse and psychological torment from Accused No.1 and his family, who blamed the complainant for the absence of children While residing in Ramagundam, the complainant became pregnant but suffered a miscarriage due to malnutrition. 5(c). Accused No.1 later secured employment with the lncome Tax Department and was sent to Nagpur for training. There, he continued to treat her as a menial servant. Following his transfer to Hyderabad, the couple attempted assisted reproductive procedures, including test tube fertilization, but was unsuccessful. Subsequenfly, Accused No.1 and his family began spreading rumors and making arrangements for his remarrrage. ln 2005, to meet the unbearable harassment a female chrld was adopted, who was named Laxmi Sindhoora. t ') MTR,.] cRtf\ 7720 & 7882 2024 5(d). While residing in Hyderabad, the com lainant observed Accused No.1 engagtng in suspicious conduct, including quently keeping himself aloof from home at nights, After his transfer to rnool, within three months the family went on a trip to Orissa, during whi colleqgue that he had remarried and h Accused No.1 disclosed to a d another child through that marriage- Upon returning, when she questio ed him, he reacted violently- creating a scene, abusing her physically and verbally, and eventually forcefully ejecting her from their home. She n returned to Hyderabad, took residence in Mithilanagar, Meerpet, and enr lled the adopted daughter in a nearby school. Accused No..l was subse ently transferred to Tirupati, Kerala, and then back to Hyderabad. 5(e). The comptainant discovered that in H purchased a residential flat in Madhapur, erabad the Accused No.1 had here he was cohabiting with Accused No.2 and had fathered three childre with her. She also learnt that a plot which had been purchased during her habitation with Accused No.1 and registered in her name near Chintapally, as fraudulently transferred to the name of Accused No.2 on the false pret nse that the complainant was deceased 5(0. According to the complainant, Accus No.'l entered into an illicit relationship with Accused No.2, married her, d completely abandoned the complainant and the adopted child. Despite epeated requests, he visited them only once every two or three months. Du abuse the complainant both physically a , ng those rare visits, he would d verbally, causing public 4 NTR,J CRLPS 7720 & 7882 2024 disturbances and humiliating her for his own gratification. However he maintained limited communication with the adopted daughter 5(g). ln 20'15, the complainant learnt that the Accused No 'l had developed another illicit relationship with a woman named lndira. As a result, a caste panchayat meeting was convened in Vinukonda, during which Accused No.1 admitted to living with lndira for the past one and a half years and agreed to pay her Rs.9 lakhs to end the relationship. Following this, he harbored resentment towards the complainant. Accused No.1 conttnued to commit acts of cruelty and intimidation to prevent the complainant from seeking legal recourse. ln his official capacity, he acquired multiple properties in the names of Accused No.2, their children, and his siblings. 5(h). The complainant confided rn her childhood friend, Sulatha, who was married to one Srinivas Reddy. She shared with Su.latha the abuse and cruelty she suffered at the hands of Accused No 1. Exploiting this, Accused No.1 maliciously spread false accusations regarding the complainant's character to deflect attention from his own misdeeds, He routinely treated the complainant with disdain---even during mundane family activities such as shopping, where he would take the daughter in his car but force the complainant to travel by bus or auto-rickshaw. 5(i). As a result of the prolonged abuse and mental distress, the complainant developed serious health issues including diabetes, hypertension, and a heart condition. Accused No.1 remained indifferent to 5 Nr&l cRLPs 7720 & 7882 2024 her health and continued his pattern of a usive behavior during sPoradic visits 50). The accused No.1 frequently instig ted the complainant to commit suicide, telling her she is worthless an undeserving of life. He also threatened to kill her, and it was alleg d that Accused No.2 activelY encouraged Accused No. 1 in his abusive be 5{k). ln one incident in 2005, when the complainant inquired why the accused No.1 rarely visited the adopted child, Accused No.1 PhYsicallY assaulted the complainant near a restauran in public view and she suffered a bleeding injury requiring three stitches used No.1 then absconded to Somasila for 20 days. A neighbor took th complainant to the hosPital for emergency care 5(l). ln December 2023, Accused No.1 created another public disturbance-ve returned to her residence and ally abusing her in vulgar language, damaging his own vehicle, and aring his shirt in a staged act to portray himself as a victim. Anticipating th t the complainant might Pursue legal action for his consistent abuse, Ac used No.l orchestrated a writ petition through their adopted daughter as a defensive strategy. He unlawfully took the child from the compl inant s custody and has since alienated her affections by poisoning her mi with lies and money 5(m). The complainant asserts that she was subjected to 20 years of continuous abuse, deception, and humiliati n at the hands of Accused No.'1 , 6 NTR,] CRLPS 7720 & 7882 2024 'l who allegedly deceived multiple women, never treatecl her as a wife and purposefully ruined her life. Although she approached the Meerpet Police Station on two occasions, she was advised to pursue legal remedies through the coutt, as the matter was deemed familial in nature. Thus. the complaint.

6. The lnspector of Police Meerpet Police Station upon reference by the CourtunderSection.l56(3)ofCrPC.registeredacaseinCrimeNo,T22of 2024under Sections4gB-A,494' 406,420.324,506 r/w 34 of lPC. 6(a). Learned counsel for Accused Nos. 1 and 2 submits that the petitioners are innocent and that the complaint is entirely baseless, containing no iota of truth. lt is contended that the criminal proceedings have been initiated maliciously, with intent to settle personal scores, and it constitute an abuse of the process of law- 6(b). lt is submitted that the Accused No 1 married the complainant on

29..1 1.1995. Upon securing employment in the lndian Railway Traffic service (IRTS) and later in the lndian Revenue Service (lRS), he relocated his family in accordance with his postings. During his posting at Hyderabad, it is alleged that the complainant developed an illicit relationship with one Srinivas Reddy, which caused a serious breakdown in their marital relationship. 6(c). Subsequently, when Accused No. 1 was transferred to Kurnool, the complainant requested for a medical check-up. Following the tesls, the attending doctor informed Accused No- 1 that the complainant had tested 7 NTR,I CRLPS 7720 & 7882 2024 positive for HIV and advised that he to be tested. However, Accused No. 1 tested negative for the disease. A fo low-up test conducted at another hospital in Hyderabad confirmed that t complainant was indeed HIV positive. 6(d). Thereafter, in view of the nature o the disease, Accused No. 1, in consultation with elders and family memb rs, arranged for the complainant to reside in a house he had purchased in yderabad. The complainant has been residing there continuously since th n. Acting on the advice of elders and with the consent of the complarnant, her parents, and in accordance with community customs which permit a ond marriage, Accused No. 1 married one Rani/Accused No.2. The co ple has since been blessed with three children. lt is further submitted that ccused No.2. was lenient while the Accused No.'1 supported the complain nt both medically and financially. 6(e). Counsel further submits that witho t informing Accused No. 1, the complainant adopted a female child fro Yerragondapalem in Prakasam District, whom she named Laxmi Sindoora- 6(0. He further pleaded that even the a opted daughter, having observed the complainant's illicit relationship, co fronted her in this regard. ln retaliation, the complainant and her allege paramour conspired to eliminate the girl by poisoning her food. However, ue to timely medical intervention, the child was saved. The adopted da ghter disclosed the incident to Accused No. 1, who advised her to aPP ch the Women and Child Welfare Department for protection 8 NTR, ] CRLPS 7720 & 7882 202,1 6(9). Based on the above, their adopted daughter filed Writ Petition No 3188 of 2024 was filed, wherein the complainant, her alleged paramour, and the adopted daughter were shown as unofficial respondents. ln the said writ petition, the complainant filed a counter denying that she is HIV positrve and levelled false and malicious allegations against Accused No.'1 . Following this, she lodged a complaint with the police, and upon refusal of the police to register the same, she resorted to filing a private complaint 6(h). lt is further submitted that the complainant coerced the adopted daughter to cooperate in her alleged illicit activities and also demanded six acres of land and Rs.4 Crores from Accused No. '1 as a precondition for not initiating false and coercive legal proceedings. The complainant is allegedly engaged in a deliberate campaign to malign the reputation of Accused No. 1, despite providing her medical and financial needs. 6(i). ln light of the above circumstances, it is contended that the prosecution is clearly malicious, vindictive, and intended solely to harass and extort Accused No 1 lt is also emphasized that the allegatrons, if allowed to proceed, would seriously prejudice his career. Hence, the learned counsel prays for quashing of the proceedings in the interest of justice.

7. Conversely, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, lhe de facto complainant, along with the Additional Public Prosecutor, opposed the petitions. They contended that the allegations contained in the complaint, if taken at face value, disclose a prima facle case warranting investigation and 9 NTR,l CRLPS 7720 & 7882 2024 trial under the relevant sections of the law It was further submitted that the veracity of the facts alleged is a matter to e adjudicated upon after a full- fledged trial. With respect to the petitione /accused's clarms regarding an alleged illicit relationship, purported illne s, and an informal settlement mediated by community elders, the r spondents argued that these assertions are unsubstantiated and unsu ported by any documentary or credible evidentiary material. Moreover, it as asserted that the petitioner has instituted a counter-case with false d misleading allegations as a strategy to evade criminal liability and hind the course of justice. On these grounds, counsel for respondent No. 2 rged the Court to dismiss the petition lh limine. fhe learned Additional Pu lic Prosecutor, while concurring with these submissions, nonetheless re uested that the petitions be considered and disposed of on its merits

8. I have carefully considered the sub issions of the learned counsel and perused the materials on record. The averments of the complaint: (i) ln reaard to crueltv: 9(a). A careful perusal of the complaint, n regard to cruelty it has been stated that the marriage between the com lainant and Accused No. '1 was solemnized in November 1995. Following heir marriage, the complainant joined the matrinronial home at in laws pl , where the complainant was allegedly treated as a domestic servant b both Accused No. '1 and his 10 NTR,} cRLPs 7720 & 7882 2021 parents. She further alleges that she was subjected to physical abuse by Accused No, 'l 9(b). Subsequently, the couple moved to Baroda in connection with the raitway training of Accused No '1 , where they lived until 1997 During this period, the complainant was allegedly subjected to continued abuse and harassment by Accused No 1 and his parents Thereafter' the accused was posted to Ramagundam, and the couple lived there until 1999. lt is during this time that the complainant reportedly suffered a miscarriage during the fifth month of pregnancy, which she attributes to SeveremalnutritionandbothmentalandphysicalabuseinflictedbyAccused No. 1 9(c). Following this, Accused No. 1 joined the lncome Tax Department and was stationed in Nagpur for training until 2002 The couple subsequently relocated to Hyderabad, where they resided until 2006 in Banjara Hills underwent an unsuccessful attempt at in-vitro complainant alleges that fertilization. No. 1 deliberately defamed her, and that his parents proposed that he phase, they During this Accused The remarry.Asaresultofthecontinuingemotionalandphysicaldistress,the complainant adopted a girl child in 2005. 9(d).WhileresidinginBanjaraHills,thecomplainantnoticederratic behavior from Accused No. f . including frequently staying out at night without explanation. Accused No. 1 was later transferred to Kurnool, and 11 NTR,] cRrPs 7720 & 7882 2024 during a trip to Orissa, the complaina claims to have discovered that he had entered into a second marriage an him after their re:urn, Accused No. I al fathered a child. Upon confronting edly physically assaulted her and forced her out of their matrimonial ome. Thereafter, she returned to Hyderabad with the adopted daughter a d has been residing separately ever 9(e). After separate living, despile he requests to the adoPted daughter, the accused No.1 allegedly visited on once every two to three months During these visits, he is said to h verbally abused and PhYsicallY assaulted the complainant in their e, causing disturbances in the neighborhood. The complaint further a leges that Accused No. 1 regularlY harassed and terrorized her, particularl when questioned about his alleged illicit relationship with Accused No. 2 s(0. lt IS also averred that Accu No. 1 made repeated visits- approximately two to three times per onth-under the pretext of meeting the adopted daughter, during which h would abuse the comPlainant and create public nuisances. On multiple casions, he allegedly instigated her to commit suicide by telling her she s unworthy of life and incaPable of bearing a child. The psychological toll f such provocations of the accused Nos. 'l and 2 reportedly drove the com ainant to attempt suicide 9(g). Moreover, the complaint refers a specific incident in 2015, where Accused No. 1 allegedly assaulted he in a public place near a restaurant 1 .t\t ! I i \ t2 NTR, ] CRrPs_7720 & 7882 2024 after she questioned him about his prolonged absences and lack of contact with their adopted daughter. As a result of this incident the complainant received medical treatment, including stitches for her injurres. (ii) On the property issues

10. The complarnant has alleged that a plot near Chinthapally was jointly purchased by herself and Accused No. 1 in her name. However, it is stated that, without her knowledge or consent, the said property was unilaterally transferred by Accused No. 1 to Accused No. 2. ln addition, it is alleged that Accused No. 1 acquired benami properties in the name of Accused No. 2 and her children (iii) lllicit affairs of the accused No.1 and cheatinq 't1. The complaint also referred to Accused No. .1's alleged illicit relationships, including one that purportedly existed even before his marriage to the complainant. lt is claimed that approximately eight years after their marriage, Accused No. 1 developed an extramarital relationship with Accused No. 2. and in 2015, he was involved in another alleged affair with a woman named lndira, which was resolved by community elders at Vinukonda. The complainant contends that Accused No. 1 misled and deceived four different women under the guise of marriage. (iv) Alleqations aqainst the accused No.2 Regarding Accused No. 2, her name appears in paragraph 13 of the complaint, where it is alleged that she, in collusion with Accused No. 1, instigated the complainant to commit suicide. 13 NTR,' cRLPs 7720 & 7882 2024 Analysis: Before proceeding to examine the rits of the present case, it would be pertinent to note that in the case of Sta eofHa ana and Ors. v. Bha an Lal and Ors., the principles governing the s pe of exercise of powers by the High Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia and under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of criminal proceedings and held as follows :- "'102. ln the backdrop of the interpretation of the arious relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law nunciated by this Court tn a serres of decisions relating to the exercise of the extrao inary power unde!' Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code ich we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases way of illustration wherern such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of t process of any court or otherwse to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be ssible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible g idelines q rigrd formulae and to grve an exhaustrve fust of myriad kinds of cases wherein su power should be exercised (1) Where the allegations made in the flrst i formatron report or the complalnt, even rf they are taken at their face value and pted in their entirety do not prtma facte constitute any offence or make out a case a ainst the accused (2) Where the allegations in the flrst info ation report and other matenals, if any, accompanying the FIR do not discl a cognizable offence, justrfying an investigation by police officers under Secti n 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of ection 155(2) of the Code (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations ade in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the a 14 NTR,] CRLPS-7720 & 7882_2024 (4) Where, the allegatrons in the FIR do not constitute a cognrzable offence but constitute only a non-cognrzable offence, no investigation is permrtted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code (5) Where the allegatrons made rn the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently rmprobable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a.iust conclusron that there is suffrcient ground for proceeding against the accused (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceedrng is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provrsron rn the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the gflevance of the aggfleved party (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedrng is malictously tnstituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite hrm due to private and personal grudge." ln the light of the above principles, the facts and circumstances of the present matter shall be examined

12. Crueltv: ln regard to the allegations of cruelty, for better appreciation the relevant provision is eldracted here under: Section 498A: Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty: Whoever, berng the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine Explanatoo -For the purposes of this section, ,'cruelty means,,- 15 NTR, J CRLPs 7720 & 7882_2024 (a) any willful conducl whrch rs of such a ature as rs lrkely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to c€use grave inJury danger to life, limb or health (whether .rnental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such arassment is with a view to coercrng her or any person related to her to meet an unlaMul demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failu by her or any person related to her to meet such demand It is a settled principle of law that r an offence to fall under Section 498-4 of the lndian Penal Code, the cond ct in question must be willful and of such a nature that it is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave mental or physical injury, or i must relate to harassment with a view to coercing her or her relatives to eet unlawful demands, including

13. ln the present case, the complaint does not allege any demand for dowry or any unlawful demand. Thus, t e only question is whether the alleged conduct amounts to "cruelty" s contemplated under Section 498-A tPC

14. Upon careful scrutiny of the allega ons, it becomes evident that the complainant has been residing separately with her adopted daughter since

2007. While the complaint references a '1995, it lacks specific details regardi of harassment dating back to g the nature, frequency, and circumstances of those events. The c Accused No. 'l and his parents are ge mplainant's allegations against eral, unsubstantiated assertions, devoid of supporting evidence or mention of any effort to involve her own 1b NTR,,] cRLPs_7720 & 7882 2024 family, elders, or legal channels prior to filing the present complaint in June

2024. The prolonged delay and lack of corroboration suggest conduct inconsistent with expected human behavior under such circumstances. Therefore it shall be concluded that, the allegations are vague, lacking in specificity, and are unsupported by particulars or any reasonable explanation for the long delay in initiating criminal proceedings. Therefore these accusations are falling short in making out essentials of cruelty within the scope of Section 498-A of lPC. Accordingly, Accused No 2-allegedly the second wife-is not a "relative" of the husband as interpreted under Section 498-4 IPC by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in, U Suvetha v. Slafe, (2009) 6 SCC 757. Therefore, even if the complainant's allegations are taken at face value, they do not fulfill the requirements for prosecution under Section 498- A IPC.

15. Biqamv: With respect to the alleged second marriage, the Accused Nos. 'l and 2 rcferred to each other as spouses. The complainant alleges that Accused No. 1 remarried without obtaining a divorce, potentially constituting bigamy punishable under Section 494 lPC. The relevant provision reads thus, Section 494: Ma rryrng again during life-time of husband or wrfe Whoever, having a husband or wife living. marries in any case in which such marriage is vord by reason of its taking place duflng the life of such husband or wife. shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be |able to fine t7 NTR,] CRLP5 7720 & 7882 2024 Except on.-This section does not extend any person whose marriage with such husband or wife has been declared voad by Court of competent jurisdiction, nor to any person who contracts a marrlag during the life of a former husband or wife, if such husband or wife, at the time f the subsequent marriage, shall have been continually absenl from such Person r the space of seven years, and shall not have been heard of by such person as ing alive within that time provided the person contracting such subsequent marri ge shall, before such marriage takes place, inform the person wrth whom such rriage rs contracted of the real state of facts so far as the same are within hs or h knowledge

16. Accused No. I contends that he elongs to a Scheduled Tribe- specifically, the Banjara community-and t at, in accordance with customary tribal practices and with the consent of th complainant and her family, he entered into a second marriage with Accu ed No. 2. Under Article 13(1) of the Constitution of lndia, customary I ws rematn valid unless they contravene fundamental rights. Addition lly, Section 2(2) ot the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, explicitly states that th Act does not apply to members of Scheduled Tribes unless notified otherwi e by the Central Government.

17. lt is undisputed that both t complainant and Accused No. 1 belong to the Banjara community, ich is recognized as a Scheduled Tribe in the State of Telangana and Andhr Pradesh under Article 342 of the Constitution of lndia. Their marital cus ms, including those related to divorce and remarriage, are governed by tr ditional norms unless specifically overridden by statutory law. The Hon'ble upreme Court, in Dr. Surajmani Stetta Kuiur v. Dttrga Charan Hansdah, Al 2001 SC 938, reaffirmed that in 18 TITR, ] CRLP5,7720 & 7882 2024 the absence of a notification under section 2(21 of the Hindu Marriage Act' tribal customary laws continue to govern nratrimonial issues

18. The Banjara community is known for its distinctive marriage customs' including regulated forms of monogamy and polygamy' as adjudicated by their internal community forum-the Gor Panchayat Polygamy' though less common today, remains culturally permissible in certain scenarios such as chronic illness of the first wife, absence of male heirs' or the need to provtde for a widow within the family Divorce is also accepted within the community' subject to the formal approval of the Gor Panchayat These customary practices, while recognized culturally' have also received legal acknowledgment in the absence of contradictory statutory enforcement'

19. ln the present case, Accused No 1 has not pleaded divorce but asserts a valid customary marrtage with Accused No 2 Moreover' the complainant herself states she did not bear children and the accused No'1 asserts that the complainant suffers from a chronic illness (HlV), under the community's customs, are recognized grounds for the nusband to take another wife.

20. Further, the alleged second relationship commenced in 2003-eight years post-marriage-and the complainant has lived separately since 2007' her prolonged silence until 2023 tends to support the claim of tacit or express consent. There is also no assertion in the complaint that polygamy is prohibited within the Ban;ara community 19 NTR,] CRLPS 7l2O & 1842 2024 21 . ln this context, it is pertinent to n that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Surajmani Stella Kujur (supra) ca gorically held that the provisions relating to bigamy under the lndian Penal ode, particularly Section 494, arc not applicable to members of Scheduled ribes if their customary law does not treat such marriages as void. The Cou emphasized that, in the absence of any specific statutory provision overridi g tribal customs, the validity of a second marriage among Tribals must be xamined in light of their personal customary laws. 22. Therefore, the alleged marriage etween Accused Nos. 1 and 2 appears to conform to their tribal cust ms, making prosecution under Section 494 IPC untenable.

23. Property issues: The complain Chinthapally was purchased in the nt alleges that the plot near ame of the complainant, but subsequently transferred to Accused No. without her consent. However, there are no specific details provided rega ing the identity, extent, or value of the property, the date of purchase, the sale consideration, or the complainant's financial contribution. Furth rmore, the complainant does not assert that the property was entrusted t Accused No. '1, nor does she explain the delay in raising the issue until t e filing of the present complaint

24. Consequently, the allegations reg rding property transactions are lacking in material particulars and credibili . The vague claim that Accused No. 1 acquired benami properties in the name of Accused No. 2 or her 20 NTR, ] CRLP5 7720 & 7882-2024 children is unsupported by any verifiable evidence or legal documentation. As such, these assertions do not make out a pima facie case worthy of judicial scrutinY.

25. Voluntaril v causln hurt: The alleged section of offence reads as follows Section 324: Voluntaril y causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means - Whoever, except in the case provided for by sectron 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any lnstrument which, used as weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corroslve substance, or by means of any exPlosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to recerve into the blood' or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either descnption for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both While the complainant alleges that she was subjected to physical violence on multiple occasions, however' all of them without particulars further were no reference as to involvement of dangerous weapons or any mention about the place and period of medical treatment Therefore the allegations do not meet the threshold for an offence of voluntarily causing hurt at least under 323 of IPC much less under section 324 of IPC (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons).

26. Cheating: Section 420 of the IPC deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of prope(y. Someone who cheats another person and 2t NTR, ) cRLPs 7720 & 7882 2024 tricks them into giving them property or luable security can be charged under this section Section 420: Cheating and dishonestly lndu ng delivery of Property.- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly i uces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alt or destroy the whole or any Part of a valuable security, or anything which is sign d or sealed, and which is caPable of being converted into a valuable security, s all be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may ext nd to seven Years, and shall also be liable to fine ln the instant complaint, there are n averments or anY circumstance suggesting that the complainant was dishonestly induced bY the petitionersiaccused to deliver property due to intentional deception, thereby ruling out the offence of cheating. Conclusion: 27 . lt is pertinent to note, as per the ti eline provided in the comPlaint, these alleged acts of the accused No.2 ave been committed only after 2007, when the complainant began living eparately from Accused No. 1 Notably, the inclusion of Accused No. 2's ame in the comPlaint appears to have been added later by hand, raising qu stions about the sPontaneitY and veracity of the allegations There are no time, location, or nature of the alleg specific averments detailing the d instigation bY the Accused No. 2, nor any evidence indicating when th complainant attemPted suicide Furthermore, no specific overt acts have n attributed to Accused No.2 I { )) NTR,I aR) P. 7720 & 7AA2 2024

28. ln the absence of detailed, specific, and corroborated allegations- especially against Accused No. 2-and given the implausibility of several claims, the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the legal process. This case clearly falls within the legal parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of criminal proceedings would constitute a mrscarriage of justice and cause irreparable harm to the reputation and liberty of the accused.

29. For the foregoing discussion, the Criminal Petition Nos.772O of 2024 and 7882 of 2024 are liable to be and are accordingly allowed. In effect, the proceedings in Crime No.722 of 2024 on the file of the Meerpet Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate against the accused Nos.'1 and 2 are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shalt stand closed SD/- AHMED ABDULLA KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \ //TRUE COPY// I "'. SECTION OFFICER \ To, l.TheVlMetropolitanMagistrate,RachakondaatL.BNagar,RRDistrict' 2. The Station House Officer,, Meerpet Police Station, Rachakonda District. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, State of Telangana, High court Buildings, at Hyderabad (OUT)

4. One CC to Sri. Jogram Tejavath, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri Nimma Narayana, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies DUPSL a HIGH COURT DATEO:3110712025 I () ( l, 21l $IS e6 r. ,i\t PL.- ru1 t a t' 5l COMMON ORDER CRLP.Nos.7720 and 7882 of 2024 /z ,,2 .ry,/2 5 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITIONS