The High Court · 2025

Petition under section 528 of BNSS 482 of cr.P.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to extend the interim orders in Crl P No 9946 of 2025 and to pass such other order or orders .as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. l.A. NO: 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 the Chargesheet vide C.C. No. 12861 of 2021 dt 21-10-2021 in F.l.R No. 109 of 2021 P S WPS, CCS, DD, Hyderabad on tl're file of the Hon'ble Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at. Nampally, Hyderabad. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Crimrinal Petitlon and upon hearing the arguments of Sri TOKALWAR JYOTI DEVI ,Advocate for the Petitioners and the SRl. JITHENDER RAO VEERAIVIALLA, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None Appeared for the Respondent No. 2 The Court made the following: ORDER r) I I :T II :i ,l ; i THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.9946 OF 2025 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.12B61 of 2021 on the file of learned Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad at Nampally, registered for the offences under Sections 49BA and 506 l.P.C

2. Heard Sri Zafar Ali Nawab, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri -l-. Jyothi Deva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent No.2-de facto complainant has filed a similar complaint earlier, based on which C.C.No.200 of 2016 on the file of learned Xlll Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahila Court, Hyderabad, was registered and it got ended in acquittal. Again, the present complaint is filed alleging offences under Sections 49BA and 506 l.P.C. He further submitted that the only intention of the de facto complainant is to harass the petitioners herein. Petitioner No.1 herein is the husband of de facto complainant, who is aged about 58 years, and is due for -_= \ \ 2 F:I-D,J Crl.P.No 99"16 ol'2025 retirement and petitioner No.2 herein is the mother of petitioner No.1, who is aged about 85 years. There are no specific allegations against the petitioners in the present complaint. He further submitted that in the maintenance case filed by the de facto complainant, she admitted during the course of her cross-examination that she lived with petitioners till the education and settlement of their children was completed. But, she has filed the present complaint bearing grudge against the petitioners. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings in the present C.C. against the petitioners.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners herein. . The prosecution could record the statements of LWs.1 and 2 and also the independent witness, L\ /.3, who stated about the harassment made by the petitioners herein against the de facto complainant He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

5. Perused the record

6. A perusal of the complaint points out specific incidents and dates of harassment. The statement of LW.1 atso discloses the specific dates of harassment alleged to have occurred on 20.06.2020 and 25.01 .2021, which gave rise to the present complaint. The earlier I ( i', J E tt) .1 Crl.P.No.9945 of 2025 case in C.C.No,200 of 2016 registered under Section 49BA l.P.C. ended in acquittal. The present case arose out of new set of incidents and thus, on the ground of acquittal arrived at in the earlier case, the present case cannot be quashed. lt is further borne out by record that LW.3 is an independent witness and her statement also discloses specific allegations against the petitioners herein. The truth or otherwise of the allegations shall be culled out after a full-fledged trial. Therefore, it is deemed appropriate it dispose of the Criminal Petition by dispensing with the attendahce of the petitioners before the trial Court.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of dispensing with the attendance of the petitioners before the trial Couit provided they are represented by a counsel before the trial Court on every date of hearing and shall appear before the trial Court whenever their presence is required during the course of ti"ial. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. SD/. K.BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \ To, //TRUE COPY/ OFFICER . The Xlll Additional^chief Metropolitan Magistrate at. Nampally, Hyderabad. . The Station House Officer, Police Station WPS, CCS, DD; Hyderabad . One CC to SRI TOKALWAR JYOTI DEVI Advocate [OPUC] . Two ccs to Public Prosecutor, High court for the state of relangana at Hyderabad [OUT] . Two CD Copies 1 2 3 4w4 ! ] I I r' i HIGH COURT DATED:0311112025 ORDER CRLP.No.9946 of 2025 1!{ E SL1 o t t II i a * DISPOSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION It {