Geddam Jhansi v. The Stafe of Telanganal ert d also Dara Lakshmi Narayana vs State of Telangana

AND '1 . State of Telangana, Rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, At Hyderabad.

2. Burra Niharika, W/o. Burra Sampath, Age.24, Occ. Housewife, Rl/o. H.No.S- 25, Muthyalaguda, Peerjadiguda, Medchal Malkajgiri, Telangana - 500039 ...Petitioners/Accused ...Respondents/Defacto Complainant 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 in CC No. 1535 of 2024, Dl. 23.07 -2024 pending before the ll Addl. Junior Civil Judge- Cum Vl Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal Malkajgiri District At LB Nagar, arising out of FIR No. 165 of 2024, Dl. 07.05.2024, on file of Women Police Station, Uppal, against the Petitioners 1, 2 and 3/Accused 2, 3 and 4, as the said complaint is vague, non- specific and abuse of process of law and as such , FIR and CC is untenable in the eye of law and Expunge all records of the responding State showing the names of the Petitioners 1, 2 and 3/Accused 2, 3 and 4, ir he interest of Justice and fair play. l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that r the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitio r the High Court may be pleased to stay all proceedings in C.C. No. 1535 of ', 024, Dl. 23.07.2024 pending before the ll Addl. Junior Civil Judge- Cum Vl Ac c . Judicial Magistrate of First Class, tvledchal Malkalgiri District At LB Nagar, aris g out of FIR No. 165 of 2024, Dl. 07.05.2024, on file of Women ,Police Statior Uppal, including the execution oI summons, appearances. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusin( .he Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing :he arguments of Sri Vijay Gopal, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri Jithe- ier Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Responl:nt No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER -ry/ I THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETI TION N0.8219 0F 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners _ accused Nos.2 to 4 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1535 of 2024 on the file of the learned ll Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum_ Vl Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Ctass, Medchal Malkajgiri District at L.B.Nagar, registered for the offences under Section 498-4 of lndian Penal Code (for short ,,lpC,,) and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short .Dp Act,,).

2. Heard the submissions of Sri Vijay Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 _ State.

3. The learned petitioners counsel has submitted that the petitioners herein are the mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother_ in-law of lhe de facto complainant and that the complaint points out omnibus allegations against the petitioners and that they stayed separately from the family of lhe de facto complainant and hence, the offences are not attracted towards the petitioners herein. LeSrned counsel relying upon the decisions of the Apex Cou( in ,/ I 2 Geddam Jhansi v. The Stafe of Telanganal ert d also Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana2 praye'i to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has ubmitted that there are specific allegations revealed from the statement of panchayath elder and hence, prayed to dismiss the pi tition' 5 Perused the record LW4/Siddala Krishna is the panchayath : der and his 6 statement points out specific allegations against t le petitioners herein that they used to abuse the de facto compl; inant in filthy language and also used to provoke the husband 'l the de facto complainant to beat her. lt is also pointed out that lere were four panchayaths held, inspite of which the harassment t;' ntinued The veracity of the witnesses is a matter to be tested dur rg the course of trial.

7. ln Dara Lakshmi Narayana's case (supra), il e respondent No.2/wife used to leave the matrimonial home uninf rrmed and on one such occasion when she left the matrimonir I house, the ' lozs 1oy /\rJtit--s(t 1468tt ' (Lozs) r scc zr-, I #lilFEtrr-' .-.=#BE'"y ,,/ ) ) husband made a police complaint and when the police found her whereabouts, she was allegedly living with someone and that after being counselled, she returned to her matrimonial home. lt was further submitted that the wife addressed a letter to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirupathur Sub-Division requesting to close the complaint made by appellant No.1 wherein she admitted that she had left her matrimonial house after quarrelling with appellant No.1 because of one Govindan, with whom she was talking over the phone for the past ten days continuously and that she would not repeat such acts in future. lt was further submitted that respondent No.2 again left the matrimonial house leaving appellant No.1 and children behind. Then the huSband having no other option has issued a legal notice seeking divorce by mutual consent. Thus, as a counter blast the present FIR was filed by respondent No.2/wife. Further, in the said case, there were no specific allegations against the appellants and the respondent No.2 left her matrimonial home on her own. ln that backdrop, the Apex Court has held that when there are no specific allegations against the appellants the proceedings need to be quashed. Thus, the appeal was allowed and the impugned order of the High Court was set aside and as a result, the proceedings before the trial Court ( I 4 were quashed. Thus the facts of the present case liffer from the above cited decision and hence the same is not appl t able.

8. Therefore, in view of the above held discuss,i ln and in the light of the decision, it is not proper to quash tlr proceedings against the petitioners herein. The truth shall be urr aveled during the course of trial, hence, it is not proper to interfere I ith the judicial process at this stage. I ln the result, the Criminal Petition is disposetl of dispensing with the attendance of the petitioners before the trial Court, unless their presence is specifically required by the trial C: trt during the course of trial, provided that they shall be repres( nted by their counsel on every date of hearing. Miscellaneous applications pending, if an1', shall stand closed. SD/.'I . SRINIVASA REDDY SI iTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER \', \ \/ The Vl Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal Malkr lgiri District, Uppal at LB Nagar The Station House Officer, Women PS, Uppal (Rachakc' Ja) Police Station, Rachakonda Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State ) Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] One CC to Sri Vijay Gopal, Advocate IOPUCI Two CD Copies J i(s To, 1 2 J 4 5 AElIl. HIGH COURT DATED: 1610912025 ORDER CRLP.No.8219 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION Ixs q,k (i..: . J ) ,), ,* \. \1.t: P,1TCH * )