The High Court · 2025

'1. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, Through Police Station WPS- lT Conidor, Cyberabad, High Court of State of Telangana. Hyderabad.

2. The Station House Officer, Police Station WPS- lT Corridor, Cyberabad, Telangana.

3. Smt. Tanuku Swathi, Wo. Ravi Kumar Tanuku, Aged about 35 years, Occ Housewife. R/o. Chikapuri Colony BL- 22, Doot No- 606, lVlanikonda, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana. 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 call for the records in the F. l. R No. 175 of 2025 dated 07. 07. 2025 on the file of the Police Station WPS- lT Corridor, Cyberabad against the Petitioners and quash the same ...RESPONDENT 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 lnvestigation in relation to F. I. R No. 175 of 2025 dated 07. 07. 2025 on the file of the Police Station WPS- lT Corridor, Cyberabad pending disposal of the above Criminal petition S-'**"52 4a This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusin! Grounds of Criminal petition and upon hearing th: BHARGAVAKRISHNA.L ,Advocate for the petitioner anc Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No1 and 2 the Respondent No3. the Memorandum of arguments of Sri lvlrs S Madhavi Asst rnd none appear for The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTIGE TIRUMALA DEV] EADA CRIMINAL PETITIO N No.9564 of 2025 ORDER: This criminal petition is fited seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.1 75 of 2025 on the file of WPS-IT Corridor, Cyberabad against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2, for the offences under Sections 85 and 115 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'DP Act'). 2. Heard Mr.L.Bhargava Krishna, learned counsel for petitioners and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2-State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the de facto complainant is not residing with the petitioners, and that due to the strained relationship between them, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was executed on 26.03.2025. As per the MoU, custody of the children was given to petitioner No.l, and certain amounts were agreed to be paid to the de facfo complainant by way of cheques. Subsequently, the de facto conlplainant gave the money to a third person, who later betrayed \ her. Following this, she lodged a complaint vide FIR No.745 of 2 C 2025 dated 15.04.2025 against one Pavan Vangirr,a. Since she was unable to settle down with him, she filed the said complaint under Sections 6a(2)(m) and 318(4) of the BNS ivhich clearty indicates that she was in a relationship with the sa d person, as reflected in the contents of the complaint. She also narrated that her acquaintance with the said person developed through Facebook, and subsequently, she filed the pres;ert complaint dated 07 07.2025, registered as FIR No.175 ol 2025, under Sections 85 and 115(2) ot the BNS and Sections j and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, against the petitioners hereir. 4. Learned counsel therefore submits that, after flre execution of the Memorandum of Understanding, the petitionrtrs and the de faclo complainant have not been residing together. He further contends that the allegations made by the de factc complainant are solely intended to harass the petitioners, and hernoe prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. 5. When the notice was served on Respondent No.3 at the address available on record, it was returned as'unclerimed' and is therefore deemed to have been duly served 6. Perused the record. I s 3

7. Record reveals that the Memorandum of Understanding dated 26.03.2025, along with the terms agreed upon between both parties, constitutes a full and final settlement of the dispute. As per the agreement, a sum of Rs.'t0lakhs was to be paid to the de facto complainant by way of cheques, and the custody of the children was handed over to the husband, who is petitioner No.1 herein. B. The record further discloses that the de facto complainant had lodged a complaint vide FIR No. 745 of 2025 under Sections 64 (2) (m) and 314 (4) of the BNS against one pavan Vangara, alleging that he had deceived her after exploiting her on the pretext of marriage. Subsequently, she filed the present complaint against the petitioners, making allegations that they had harassed her for additional dowry. It is pertinent to note that both parties had earlier arrived at a compromise and have since been living separately. lt is also admitted that the de facto complainant was in a relationship with another person during this period. 9. The facts of the present case are squarely covered by the judgment of Apex Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telanganal , wherein ln the said case, the respondent No.2/wife t lzozs;: scc z3s 4 t: used to leave the matrimonial home uninformed ancl cn one such occasion when she left the matrimonial house, the husband made a police complaint and when the police found her n,hereabouts, she was allegedly living with someone and that after being counselled, she returned to her matrimonial home. 11. was further submitted that the wife addressed a letter to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirupathur Sub-Division r:rquesting to close the complaint made by appellant No.1 whereir s;he admitted that she had left her matrimonial house after qtta rrelling with appellant No.1 because of one Govindan, with wlrom she was talking over the phone for the past ten days continuously and that she would not repeat such acts in future. lt was furlher submitted that respondent No.2 again Ieft the matrimonial ltouse leaving appellant No.1 and children behind. Then the husbilnd having no other option has issued a legal notice seeking divorc:e by mutual consent. Thus, as a counter blast the present FlFl rruas filed by respondent No.2/wife. Further, in the said case, th-.re were no specific allegations against the appellants. ln that backdrop, the Apex Court has held that when there are no specifir:: allegations against the appellants and there is admission nade by the respondent No.2-wife that she had left her matrin onial house \ t-- "&ar;if Y" -..i _ 5 I - I I t I I i l To, M 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, the appeal was allowed and the impugned order of the High Court was set aside and as a result, the proceedings before the trial Cou( were quashed.

10. ln view of the ratio laid down in Dara Lakshminarayana's case, in the absence of specific overt acts against the petitioners, the continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.'l and 2 in FIR No.175 of 2025 on the file of WPS-IT Corridor, Cyberabad are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/.A.SREENIVASA REDOY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER L The First Additional Junior Civil Judge cum -lX Additional Judicial Magistrate of First C|ass,RESPONDENTS Dist at Kukatpally

2. The Station House Officer, Police Station WPS-IT,Conidor ,Cyberabad 3. One CC to SRI BHARGAVAKRISHNA.L Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CC to SRl. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Advocate [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies --"""e?":?-?r:nxrB- --.-..1ryra- ''..a..3*1- '- --?.tr{-_. -tqd 4 HIGH COURT DATED:1810912025 , ':]\ ,/ r'1' l -) 1.) 2 :i _cEP 2025 .\ ,/ ORDER CRLP.No.9564 of 2025 CRLP IS ALLOWED I q $