The High Court · 2025

2 Smt. G. Kanya Kumari, years, Occ. Homemake - 500020 WoK rR/ol ...RESPONDENT/COM Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumrt"n""l stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may .., be pleased to quash CC 807 of 2016 on the file of Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad l.A. NO: 2 OF 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 expedite the hearing of lA No.1 of 2025 in CRLp. t{o]AZOZ ot 2O2b and fix an early date for admission of the case l.A. NO: 1 OF 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 in CC 807 of 2016 on t-he file of Xlil Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the main Criminal Petition t: This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri C pratap Reddy, learned counser representing sri G MoHANEESH ATHEENDRA, AdVOCAIE fOT thE PCtitiONEr ANd SRI JTTHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA, AdditiONAI Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 & 2 and None Appeared for the Respondent No.3 The Court made the following: ORDER l-\ 1 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTTCE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.8767 OF 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner - accused seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.807 of 2016 on the file of the learned Xltl Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the offence under Section 498-A of the lndian Penal Code (for short.lPC').

2. Heard the submissions of Sri C.Pratap Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri G.Mohaneesh Atheendra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent Nos.1 and 2. None appeared on behalf of respondent No.3 inspite of service of notice.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent No.3 who is the wife of the petitioner lrerein has lodged a complaint with Lokayukta and Lokayukta has directed the police to register a case and the police have registered a case against the petitioner herein. He further submitted that Lokayukta has no jurisdiction to entertain any complaint and to direct the police and that the FIR itself is liable to be quashed. He further submitted that a mutual consent divorce was obtained with respondent No.3 but it E-., z*"4 ! i i i I ( I ! I : :l : I I I I , i 2 is alleged by respondent No.3 that she has forcibly signed the divorce paper under a threat, which is not correct and further that respondent No.3 has left the society of the petitioner on her own and has subsequently came up with all these false allegations and she has also filed a DVC vide DVC No.93 of 2015 which was dismissed and the appeal against the said case is also dismissed. He submitted that since the case is based on fatse allegations, he prayed to quash the proceedings.

4. The learned Additional, Pubtic Prosecutor has submitted to pass appropriate orders.

5. Perused the record. The record discloses that the Lokayukta has directed the police to register the First tnformation Report.

6. ln Dr.R.G.Sunil Reddy v. The A.p.Lokayukta, Basheerbagh, Hyderabadl, it was held by this High court that the Lokayukta has no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint, which neither involves an allegations nor involves any action or inaction connected with such an allegations. lt was also held that inter se private disputes between the parties including matrimonial dispute does not fall within the purview of the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta '2ots SCC ont-ine Hyd 368 1' 3 under the Act and that only such acts, which are actuated by allegation against public servants and the authorities as named under Section 7 of the Act alone fall within the domain of the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta, as the case may be.

7. Thus, in the light of the said decision, Lokayukta does not have jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. Further, it is borne out by record that there was a mutual consent divorce obtained by the parties herein i.e. de facto complainant and the petitioner herein and further it was agreed upon that she has claimed for return of 50 tulas of gold and Rs.40,000/- under the said petition. Hence, the question of threatening her for obtaining divorce does not arise, which allegation also appears to be false. lt is further borne out by record that there have been several cases filed including the DVC which was dismissed and the appeat against the said case atso was dismissed. The statement of LW1 the complainant herein does not point out any specific allegations of harassment but for the allegation that her father-in-law has sold away 30 acres of land and has not given a single rupee to her. B. ln view of the above held discussion, it is held that it is a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 582 of BNSS and the proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed. z'4 ( ( t ( 4

9. ln the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner-accused in C.C.No.807 of 2016 on the file of the learned xlll Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- NAYANI CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO DEPUW REGISTRAR \ To, ,,TRUE COPY/' \',, \ \\ I OFFICER

1. The Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, Hyderabad District

2. The Station House Officer, Chikkadapally Police Station, Chikkadapally, Hyderabad District

3. One CC to SRI G MOHANEESH ATHEENDRA Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies VM/PSL , ^v HIGH COURT DATED: 21108l,2025 \ \ ORDER CRLP.No.8767 ot 2025 1,rE 5 i-i ( O $3ELCg + , 'P,.t.l ii-i ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION t0 ll