The High Court · 2025

PetitionunderSection4S2ofCr.P.Cprayingthatinthecircumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may i" pL"r"o to stay all further proceedings including the appearance of the petiiioner in CC.No 2728 of 2O21 on the file of the Court of the lVAdditionalMetropolitanMagistrate,MedchalMalkajgiriDistrict. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Fetition and upon hearing the arguments of SriTSAnirudhReddy,AdvocateforthePetitionerandSriE.Ganesh, Asst'PublicProsecutoronbehalfoftheRespondentNo.landofSriAnmi Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No 2' The Court made the following: ORDER f" THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.8391 of 2o23 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section under Section 48'2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (for short 'Cr.P.C') by the petitioner/ accused No.2, seeking to quash the proceedings against her in C.C.No.2728 of 2O2l on the file of IV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal Malkajgiri District (for short, the trial Court), registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act

2. Heard Mr.T.Pradhyumna Kumar Reddy, learned counsel representing petitioner, Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Plrblic Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 1 / State and Mr. P.Animi Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the record.

3. The bricf facts of the case are that the marriage of 2nd responclent and A- 1 was performed on 16.O2.2a20. Their engagement was performed on 08.12.2019 and at 1 2 EW,J Crl.P.No.8397 oJ 2023 .t:.-: - that time, the parents of 2'd respondent gave Rs 2,O0,0O0/- cash, Rs. 30,000/- for clothes and 3 Tulas of gold to the accused as dowry and at the time of marriage, 2.5kg silver ornaments, 10 lakhs cash for household articles and 65 Tulas of gold was given as dowry, apart from of all these, the pa-rents of t1le 2n't respondent spent Rs.38,0O,OO0/- for marriage. After two days of marriage, is alleged that all the accused harassed the 2"d respondent for an additional dowry of Rs. 1O,O0,0OO/- for purclrase of a plot. Later, )na respondent joined her husband A-1 at Singapore and after couple of days, A-1 went home in a drunken condition and beat her and forced her to ask for more money from her parents. Later, the 2"d respondent conceived and fell ill but even after that A-1 fought with her arrd sent her back to India as he was not interested in bearing medical expenses of the

2.d respondent and a-fter that A- 1 never called her and due to the mental harassment meted out by her, she underwent abortion. A- 1 blamed the 2'd respondent and never responded to her calls and intentionally blocked her phone numbers and her parents phone numbers and even sent a 3 EW,J Crl.P.No.8397 of 2O23 legal notice. When the 2",1 respondent and her parents went to house of A,2 to ask about the sanre, she did not open the door and insulted them in lront of their neighbors. Thereafter, the 2.d respondent gave a report against A-l to A-4 and the same was regisl.ered as Crime No.48 of 2027 on the lile of Medipafly police Station, after completion of investigation, the police filed the present charge-sheet for offences u/s 49g_A, 323 IpC and 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. Learned senior counsel representing petitioner/A2 contended that the petitioner/A2 is innocent of all the offences alleged against her arrd she had been falsely implicated jn the present case. The petitioner herein is mother-in-1aw of 2"d respondent. He further contended that immediately after marriage of A- 1 and 2,d respondent on 16.02.2020, Al went to Singapore on 01.03.2020 and thereafter, the 2"d respondent went to her parents, house until she joined A-1 on2O.O3.2O2O at Singapore. Therefore, apart from 16.02.2020 to Ol.O3.2O2O, the 2",r respondent never stayed under one roof with the petitione r /A2 herein. l l I 4 EW,J Crl.P.No.8397 o! 2O23 He further contended that there are bald and omnibus allegation against the petitioner that after two days of marriage, A- I to A-4 harassed the 2'd respondent for additional dowry. He further contended that the 2"d respondent is an educated lady, having studied M.Sc Bio-Technologr and she would not have kept quiet for such a long time if the allegations that are made in the charge- sheet with regard to harassment or demand of dowry were to be true.

5. Learned counsel further submits that Section 322 IPC which defrnes "voluntarily causing grievous hurt" reads as follows: "Whoeuer voluntarilg causes hurt, if the hurt which he intends to co:use or knouts hinself to be likelg to crruse is grieuous hurt, and if the hurt t/Jhich he ccuses is grievous hurt, ls sqid, "uoluntarilg to cd:use grieuous hurt." He further submits that even a bare reading of the charge- sheet, would make it clear that Section 323 IPC does not attract to the Petitioner herein' There is no allegation as against the Petitioner herein with regard to voluntarily 5 EW,J Crl.P.No.8391 ot' 2023 causing grievous hurt to the 2"a responclent. The said allegation is against A- 1 during their stay in Singapore.

6. He frrrther submits that 2.a respondent has gone to an extent of even naming aunt of A-l (arrayed as A-4), who acted as a mediator for their marriage, which itself speaks volumes about the attitude of the 2na respondent in lalsely implicating the fam ily members of A- I out of personal vendetta.

7. He further submits that Section 4gg_A IpC does not attract to the petitioner herein which reads as follows Husband or relatiue of husband. oJ a wornan subjecting her to cr-uelty Whoeaer, being the husband. or the relqtive of the husband of a uoman, subjects s..tch taomdn to crteltg sha'll be punished. with imprisonmeat for a term uhich may extend to three gears and. shall d.lso be liable to Jine. Explanation, -For the purpose of this section, ,'cnteltg,, means- (a) ang wi$ul conduct which is of s,uch a rroLture as is likelg to driue the utciman to commlt s..ticid.e or to cause grdue injury or danger to ltfe, limb or heo.lth (tohether mento.l or phgsica.l) of the womq.n; or (b) harassment of the uoman ushere such hq.roLssment is with o. uieu to coercing her or ang person telated to her to meet ang unlano.fut d.emand. for ang propertg or aq.luq.ble secur.ltu or fs on qccount of falture bg he" or dng person related to her to meet such d.emand.. 6 EW,J Crl.P.No.E39 7 of 2023

8. Learned counsel further submits that it is alleged by the 2"d respondent that when she went to the house of the petitioner along with her parents lLW2 and LW3, the petitioner did not open the door of the house, thus, insulted them in front of the neighbours and even taking into account the above stated ailegation to be true, it won't amount to cruelty as defined under Section 498-A of IPC.

9. Learned counsel further submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Judgments rendered in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others as State of Bihar and otherst, observed that:-

72. Before we d.elue into greater detail on the nature q.nd conteat oJ allegations mdde, it becomes pertinent to mention that incorpordtion of section 4984 oJ IPC uas almed at p"eaenting ct'ueltg comnitted. upon a woman bg her husband. and her in-laus, bg lacilitating rapid state intefl)entlon. However, it is equallg trate, that in recent tllmes, mc,trimonial litigqtlon in the country has also increqsed. significantlg and there ls a greater disalfectloa dnd lriction surround.ing the institution oJ manriage, ',.out, more th(In eaer, This has resulted in an lncreased. tend.eacg to emplog provisions sirch 6rs 498A IPC cs lnstnrments to settle personal scores agalnst the husband. and. his relatiaes. 7a. The ahoue-mentioned, d.ecisions clearlg d.emonstrate th(I,t thls court ha.s at nume"ous instances expressed. concern oaer the misrrse of section 4984 Irc and the increased. tend.encg of inplicati,n,g relatives of the | 2022 s,CC OnLine SC 162 7 EW,J Crl.P.No.8391 oJ' 2023 husbrrnd. in matrlmonial d.isputes, ulthout d.nalgsing the long term ramiJicatlons o.f a trio.l on the compldinq.nt as uell as the accused. It is further maniJest from the satd judgments tho' lalse implication bg wag of general omnihts a.llegations mo.de in the course of tnqtrimonial d.ispute, if lefi unchecked. utould. result in mls|ltse of the process of laut, ThereJore, this court bg utag of its Jud.gments has uaried the courts from proceed.lng qgainst the rel(rtiues and. in-laus oJ the husband. u)hen no primd lacie case is mad,e out agqinst them.

79. Coming to the facts oJ this case, upon o. perusd.l of the contents oJ the FIR dqted O7.O4.79, lt is reaeo.led. that genero.l allegatlons are leaelled agoi,r.st the Appellants. The cotnplainant alleged that .a.ll q.ccused. harassed her nentallg and threatene.l her oJ tennindting her pregnancg'. htrthermore, no specific qnd. distinct allegations haae been mad3 d.gqinst either oJ the Appellants herein, i.e., none oJ the Appellants have been attributed ang specific role ln furtherance of the general o.llegqtions made qgainst them. Thls simply lead.s to a situation utherein one Jalls to q.scerto,i't. the role pldged. bg each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are therefore general and olmnibus and can at best be sqld to have been ma.de out on a.ccount oJ small skirmisrres. Insofar as husband. is cortcernedj since he h(rs not appeqled. against the ord.er of the High court, u)e haae not exqmined. the veracitg oJ allegations mad.e agalnst him, However, a.s ldr o.s the Appellants are concented., the allegatlons made o,go:inst thern being general and. omnlbus, d.o rl.ot wa"rq.nt prosecution.

22. Therefore, upon consid.erdtion oJ the releod.nt circur?nst(I'tces and. in the qbsence of ang specific role dttributed to the accused (zppell(lnts, lt tDould. be unJust the Appellants are forced to go through the tribuldtions oJ o. trlal, i.e., general qnd. omnibus allegations caltrtot nqniJest ln a situqtion where the relatives of the comploinant's husband. are forced to und.ergo trial. It ha's been htghlighted bg thls court in oaried instqnces, that a criminal trlal leadlng to an eaentual acqulttdl olso inrllcts seuere scars upon the . n *'accused., and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged. I 8 EW,J Crl.P.No.8397 of 2O23 ln Abhishek as State of Madhga PradeslP

73. Instqnces oJ a husband's fannily members filing a petition to quosh crimlns.l proceedingg lqunched agoi^st them bg his wife in the ,r.idst ol rz.o,trimonlrrl disputes are neither q raritg nor o! recent origin. Precedents aplentg abound on this score. We mag nout t(rke note of so'Ire decistons of particular relevance. Recentlg, in Xq'hk(rsho't Kg'usa.r (rli(I.s Sonom u. State of Blhar fi2o22) 6 SCC 5991, this Court hdd. occdslon to deal wlth a sirnllor situation rohere the High Court had. reJused to qu(rsh q FIR registered for various ofJences, including Section 498,4 IPC. Noting that the loremost issue tll(It required determinotion uas whether allegations made agalnst the ln-lanos raere general omlrlbus allegations tuhich uould. be llable to be'quashed, this Cowrt reJerred. to eq.rlier decisions wherein corrcerrr was expressed oaer the misuse of Sectlon 49AA Irc a d. the increased tendencg to implicote relatives oJ the husbdnd in ,notrimoniq.l disputes. Thls Court obseraed thqt lqlse lmplicatlons bg wag of generol omnibus allegatlons mq.de in the course of matrlrnoniq.l disputes, iJ left unchecked, would result in misuse oJ the process of lq.u. On the Jacts ol that cdse, it .JJ(ls found th(It no specific allega.tions utere made o,gainst the in-laws bg the uiJe and it wo.s held. thot allowing thelr prosecution in the absence oJ cleqr allegations against the ln-lq.ws tuould. result in an dbwse of the process oJ lau. It tuo-s also noted tha't q. criminql trial, lea.ding to d.n eaentual acqulttal, utould. inJlict severe scars upon the q.ccused. and such an exercise ought to be discouraged,

74. In Preetl Guptrr u. State of Jharkh,and [(2O1O) 7 sCC 6671, thls Court noted tho't the tend.enc! to implicate the husb(lnd o.nd all his immed.iq.te rel(rtioIr.s is also '/[ot uncommon in compldlnts liled und.er Section 49aA IPC. It wds obsen)ed that the Courts haue to be extremelg cqreful and cautious in dedling wlth these complq.ints d^d. ,7-ust tq.ke ptagmatic req.llties 2 2023 SCC O.rl-it e SC tO83 9 BW,J Crl.P.No.8397 of 2O23 l^to considerqtlon while dealing with matrimonial c@ses, .ts c.llegrrtlor.s ol ho,rossment by husband's close reldtions. ruho were llving in dtfferent cities and neuer visited the place where the visited or "a.relg compla.inqnt resided, taould add an entlrelg dliferent cornplbxion and such allegations would haue to be scrwtinised with gredt cq.re and circumspectlon.

15. Earller, in Neelu Chopra o. Bho;tt [(2OO9) IO SCC 7a41, this Court obseraed. tho,t the me"e mentio/? of st(rtlatory proruisions o.nd the language theteof, Jor lodging a complaint, is not the 'be o.ll and ewl all' oJ the matter, q.s rohat ls requlred to be brought to the notice oj the Court ls the partlculars oJ the olfence commltted bg each dnd every qccused and the role pta.ged bg each qnd every accttsed ln the commission of that offence. These obseruations were tnade in the context ol q t7.otrl'7.oni(I.l dlsPute lnaolalng Section 4984 IPC.

76. Of more recent origln is the declsion ol this Court in Mahmood Atl v. Stqte oJ Ir.P. (Crlmi,?.ql APpeal No' 2347 of 2023, declded on OE'O8.2O23) on the legal principles appllcable d.ProPos Section 482 Cr.P.C- Thereln, lt wqs obserued that whe^ dn qccused comes beJore the High Couit, invoklng either the inherent pouer under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or the ertraordinqry jurisdictlon under Artlcle 226 oJ the Constltutlon, to get the FIR or the crlminal proceedlngs quo'shed, essentiallg on the ground t,1.ot such proceedings are manifestlg Jrluolous or aexatlous or lnstltuted Luith the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeqnce, then in slach circumstances, the Htgh Court outes a dutg to look lnto the FIR tDith cdre and o. little more closelg- It was further obserued thdt lt ulrl not be enough fo" the Courl to look into the auennents made ln the FlPJcomptdint alone for the WrPose of ascertalning whether the necesso,ry lngredients to constltwte the alleged offence qre disclosed or rtot o.s, in Jrluolous or lexatious proceed.ings, the Coutt owes d dutg to look into mdng other attending circumstances emetglng from the record oJ the cdse ouer dnd above the oluerznents and, tf need be, ulth due cqre qnd clrcumspection, to try qnd redd between the llnes' 10 EW,.r Crl.P.No.8397 oJ 2O23

77. In Bhajrrn Lal (supra), this Court had. set out, bg wag of illustratlon, the broad categories o.f cnses ln uhich the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.p.C. coutd be exerclsed. Paro. 7O2 of the d.ecision red.d.s as follouts: '1O2. In the backdrop of the lnterpretqtton o! the vq,rious relevq.nt provlsions oJ the Code und.er Chapter NV and oJ the prtnciples of law e,1.t'l''1.clo'ted. b! this Court ln a series ol decisions relatlng to the exercise of the ert"dordindry power und.er Article 226 or the inherent potaers und.er Section 482 of the Cod.e uhlch ue hqve ert"q.cted, and reproduced aboue, ue gtve the Jolloulng categories o/ ccses bg toag of lllustrdtlon wherein such ptower could be exerclsed either to preaeat g,btlse of the process o! ang court or otherwise to secure the end.s of justice, though it mag not be possible to lqg d.own ang precise, clearlg deJined and suflTclentlg channelised. and. lnJlexible guldelines or rigid. fortnulae and. to giue an exhaustioe llst of mgriad kinds of cases utherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the q.llegqtlons mqde in the Jirst lnfortnation report or the complqlnt, even if theg qre tq.ken qt their lace ualue and. accepted. in their entiretg d.o not prima facle constitute o.ng offence or mq.ke out q. case agqinst the accused. 12) Where the d.llegations in the lirst lnformation report and. other materTa.ls, if qng, accompanging the FIR d.o not disclose a cognlzable offence, justifging an investlgatlon bg police officers under Section 156(l) oJ the Code except und.er an order of a Magistrate within the puralew ol Section 755(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontrouerted. allegations mq.de in the FIR or complaint o.nd. the evldence collected in support o,f the same d.o not disclose the commlsslon oJ ang olJeace and nl;o,ke out d. cqse q.gq.ir.st the q.ccused.. (4) Where, the allego'tions in the FIR d.o not constitute a cognizable ollence but constltute onlg a non_ cognizable offence, no lnaestlgdtion ls pennitted bg a police olJicer utlthout q.n order of o. Maglstrqte a-s contemplated uftd.er Section lSSl2) oJ the Cod.e. 11 EW,J Crl.P.No.8397 oll 2O2O (5) Where the allegatlons madc in the FIR or complalnt q.re so abswrd and lnherentlg improbable on the basis of uthich no prud.ent petson co:n eaer reo.ch q. just conclusion that there is slrlJicient ground. Jor proceeding q.gainst the accused.. (6) Where there is an express legal bql engrafied in ang of the provisions of the Cod.e or the Act concerned. (under which a crimlll.rrl proceedlng is l^stituted.) to the instltutlon o,nd continuq.nce of the proceed.ings and/or where there ls a speciJic provlslor. in the Code or the Act concerned, providlng eflicaclous red.ress for the gieuq.'lce of the aggrieved pdrtg. (7) Where a criminal proceeding ls m(rr.restlg qttend.ed. uith mdla ll.de q.nd/or uhere the proceed.lng is maliclouslg inEtituted with q.n ulterior motlve for wreaking aengednce on the q.ccused. and with a vlew to spite him d.ue to privqte and personal grwdge.' 79- The n.ost signifLcant qspect to be taken note oJ presentlg is thqt Bhqunq. admitted.tg parted wags utith her mqtrimonlq.l horne q.nd. her i^-lq.us ln February, 2OO9. be it aoluntarlly or otheru)ise, but she did not choose to rnake q complqint agd.inst them ln relation to dowry harassnnent till the gear 2OlS. Surprisinglg, FIR No. 56 d.ated O9.O2.2O13 records that the occurrence of the olfence was from O2.O7.2OOZ to O5-O2.2O13, but no q.llegqtions taere made bg Bhaunq dgalnst the appellants aJter she lefi her 'f/.q]trimonio.l home in Febntary, 2OO9. Signlficqntlg, Bho.wna got mdrried to ,|frmtsh on O2.OZ.2OO7 st Indore dnd aent to Mumbai with him on O8.O7.2OOZ, He" interdction with her in-ldws theredfier see'zts to haue been onlg during festivo.ls and is stated. to be about g or 4 times. Sourdbh, q.n drchitect, was stdtloned. qt Delhi slnce the gear 2OO7 and no spec{lc allegatlon urcts ever mo.de q.gq.inst him bg Bhdu)'r'.q.. In Jact, she merelg rnade a general allegation to the effect thqt he d.lso tortured. her mentallg and phgstcallg for d.owry. No specific instdnce wo.s clted bg he? in that regd.rd. or d.s to how he subjected her to such hq/:dss'7.ent lrom Delhi. Similarlg, Abhtshek became a Judlclal olfiier 6 or 7 months aJter her marriage and. seems to hque ho.d no occcsion to be with Bhawna and ,t! mlsh at Mumbal. I '{.d!-':: I,r-r.!Fq_: LZ EW'J CrLP.No.8397 ol 2023 Hls e4rosure to her wos onlg when she came to uislt her ii-taws during lestlao,ls' surPrisi.rglg' Bhawnd' alleges that dt the time o! F.is own man'iage' Abhishek deianded thort Bholuirra and her Parents should provlde hlm ultth a car and Rs' 2 lo'khs in cdsh' Whg he uould make such d demdnd lor dowry' euen I he uas incl\ned to co7lrmlt such an illegdtitg' trom his sister-in-tcur at the time o! tr.is own nariioge is rather lncongt'llous and dlfficult to cofiPrehend' Fwrther' the Tolct inat Bhanana confessed' to mo'kl,r.g a ulcious complcllnt c.gollnst Abhishek to the Hig,|. Court cleatlg shois that her notives utere 'l'ot clean insotar as her brother'ln-laur, Abhtshek, ls concented' and she clesrlg !,,crrlted to wreak vengeance o'gd;inst her ln-laws' The clllegcrtion levelled bg Bho:wna dgainst her mother-ln' trwl l<llstr^ Lato,, with regqrd to hou sft:e taunted her when she u)ore q maxi ls whollg tnstflTcient to constiatte crueltg irt terns ol Section 49aA IPC' Lrarned counsel further submits that the Hon'ble 10. Supreme Court in the Judgment rendered in K'Subba Rao v. The State oJ Telangana, observed that:- "6. The Courts slauld, be carelul ln proceeding dgqinst the distant relatiues in crimes Pertaining to m@trimonloll disputes and dowry deo;ths' The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the bqsis o'f imniOus allegatiorts unless speclfic instdnces ol their inaolaement in the crime are rnade out"' Learned counsel further submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Judgment rendered in Geeta Mehrotra&Anr.Vs.StateofllttarPradesh,Specifically held that the continuation of proceedings against whom specific instances of harassment are not alleged in the 13 EW,J Crl.P.No.8391 ol 2023 charge-sheet or in the statements, would amount to abuse of process of Law. 1 1. Learned counsel further submits that the in preethi Gupta and a.nother I/s. State of Jharkhand and. anothe4 the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically concluded that the implication of the relatives in the complaint is only meant to harass and to humiliate them i and permitling complainant to pursue such complaint would be an abuse of process of law. Having said so, The Apex Court went on to quash the cornplaint on the ground that it would be unfair to compel the accused to undergo the rigmarole of a criminal trial Before parting uith this case, ure would llke to obserte that q. serious relook of the entire prourslon is uq.rrqnted. bg the legislation. It is clso c matter ol common knouled.ge th(tt e/.o.ggerated. verslons oI the irrcid.ent are reJTected. in a large number of corrlplaints, The tendencg oJ over implication is crlso re!7ectied. in a very large nutnber of cases.

35. The criminal trials leo.d to Lrz.me'l-se atllerings Jor all concerned.. Eaen ultimate o.cquittdl in the triit mag rrlso not be dble to uipe out the d,eep sco;s of slrlfet lng of ignoming. Unfortunatelg a large number oj these complaints haae not onlg flooded the courts ltut a.lso haae led to enor-r7rous sociq.l unrest aliecting peace, harrnong and happiness ol the socletg. It is hioh time that the leglslature must td.ke into consld,era{ion the prq.gmqtic reo.lities and. make sultqble cho,nges in the existlng lrr.u. It ls imperatiae for the legislaire to take into considerqtion the lnJorrned publlc optnioa and the prqgmqiic realities in consld.ero.tioi d.nd. rnake L4 DW,J CrLP.No.E397 ot' 2023 rrecessqr! chcr.nges in the releoa.nt provlsiotts of la.w, He further submits that the facts of the present case are in total consonance with guidelines No. 5 and 7 laid down in State oJ Haryana & Others a. Bha|an Lat & Otherss, which read as follows: "(5) Whete the a'llego:tlons mad,e in the FIR or compldint are so absurd. and inherentlg lmprobable on the basis oJ which no pt-ud,ent person.com euer reach a just conclusion tho:t there is s1{licient ground Jor proceeding against the accused-., ...(7) Where a crlmirta,l proceeding is manilestlg q.ttend.ed utlth mala fide q.nd.ior where the proceeding is maliciously instituted. uith an ulterior motiae for utreaking uengeance on the dccused o.nd uith a tLew to spite him d,ue to priuate and. personal grud.ge.,,

12. He further submits that all the facts have been misrepresented a_nd the allegations that have been made are fabricated and lacks any corroboration and the complaint contains mere repetition without arly materia_l evidence collected and the 2"d respondent has implicated the Petitioner herein with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the Petitioner, as such continuation of the proceedings in C.C.No.272a of 2O2l before the trial Court is nothing abuse of the process of Law and the same is 3 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 15 EW,J CrI.P.No.839I of 2023 liable to be quashed. Therefore, he prayed to quash all further proceedings against the petitioner/A2 in C.C.No.2728 of 2021 before the tria_l Court. 1 3 . On t he other hand, learned Additional public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions made by the lealned counsel for the petitioner and contended that unless and until a full-fledged trial is conducted, truth cannot be elicited and interference of this Court at this stage is unr.r,arranted. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition L4. Learned counsel for 2nct respondent/complainant also 0 ! argued in similar lines and sought for dismissal of Criminal Petition I 5. Having regarcl to the submissions made bv the learned counsel for the respective parties and upon perusing thc material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the matter requires adjudication at iength. The trial Court, after conducting a full-fledged trial and upon examining the oral and documentary evidence 16 EW,J CrLP.No.E397 ot: 2023 available on record, is directed to pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Criminal petition at this stage.

16. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is dismissed. However, the appearance of the petitioner/A2 before the trial Court, is dispensed with for each and every adjournment unless specifically required by the trial Court. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if arly, shall stand closed. Sd/. P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, s 1 2 J 4 5 6 The lll lrletropolitan tvlagistrate, at L-B'Nagar, Rangareddy District fh" Strtion House OffiJer, Medipally Police Station' Rachakonda One CC to Sri. T S Anirudh Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]' One CC to Sri Anmi Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] TwoCCstoPublicProsecutor'HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat Hyderabad.(OUT) Two CD Copies. Y]R/DL -.:€.a.r}"iffi--G I Z,: ,1,Afl ?W ($( z J+ * Dr:,. :'/..-f t,,r{) * HIGH COURT DATED:0710212025 ORDER CRLP.No.8391 of 2023 DISMISSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION. rql0f I "%ffi