The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor High Court for the state of Telangana Through P.S. Bhemmgal G-ummerla l1ujanq, W9 Thirupathi, Age. 31 years, Occ. Govt principal at Khanpoor, Nirmal Dist R/o. Chengal Village, Bheemgal Mandal, Nizahabad Diskict. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS 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 proceedings in C.C. No. 11 of 2025 on the file on the file I Addl First Class Magistrate, Armoor against Petitioners/Accused No. 2,3,4. LA. NO:2OF2025 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 grant stay of all further proceedings including appearance of PetitionersiAccused Nos. 2,3,,4 in C.C. No. 11of 2025 on the file on the file lAddl First Class Magistrate, Armoor, pending adjudication of the Criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri PONNAM ASHOK GOUD, Advocate for the Petitioners and SRI JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI I:ADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.10110 ot 242!i ORDER This petition is filed seeking quashment of the C.O.No.11 of 2025 on the file of learned I Additional First Class h4agistrate, Armoor against the petitionersiaccused Nos.2 to 4

2. Heard [t/lr.Ponnam Ashok Goud, Iearned:<:unsel for petitioners and lvlr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-lS:ate

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has subntitted that petitioners have never resided with the de-facto comlrlitinant and her husband and that the complainant is working as a l:'rincipal at Khanapoor and that the husband of the complainart resides at Dubai and he is working as private employee and pe:itioners had no occasion to live with her to harass the de-facto c,:,mplainant and that the allegations are bald and have no strength and that no specific dates and specific incidents of harassment are stated by the complainant in her complaint. Therefore, prayed lo quash the same. 2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble supreme court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana y. Sfafe of Telanganal, where in it is held that the FIR should reveal the specific details as to the time, date, place or manner in which the alleged harassment has occurred. As the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations, the apex Court set aside the order of the trial Court and has allowed the quash petition.

5. Learned Additional public prosecutor opposed the petition, submitting that LW-4, who is a panchayat elder has specifically stated about the harassment made by the petitioners.

6. Perused the record.

7. The learned petitioner counsel has.relied upon a decision in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana (supra). ln the said case, the respondent No.2/wife used to leave the matrimonial home uninformed and on one such occasion when she left the matrimonial house, the husband made a police complaint and when the porice found her whereabouts, she was allqgedly living with someone and that after being counseiled, she ' lzozsy 3 scc u:s J returned to her matrimonial home. lt was further sutrn-itted that the wife addressed a letter to the Deputy Superink, ndent of Police, Thirupathur Sub-Division requesting to close th{l ()omplaint made by appellant No.1 wherein she admitted that sh,:r had left her matrimonial house after quarrelling with appell;lnt No.1 because of one Govindan, with whom she was talkirrg over the phone for the past ten days continuously and that she: urrould not repeat such acts in future. lt was further subrnitted that respondent No.2 again left the matrimonial hou:;r: leaving appellant No.'1 and children behind Then the husbancl .raving no other option has issued a legal notice seeking divorce l_y mutual consent. Thus, as a counter blast the present FiR ,a,,a,; filed by respondent No.2/wife. Further, in the said case, there were no specific allegations against the appellants. ln that bar:l:Crop, the Apex Court has held that when there are no specific allegations against the appellants and there is admission madr: [y fhs respondent No.2-wife that she had left her matrimon al house after quarrelling with appellant No.1 because of one (,ovindan, with whom she was talking over the phone for the past ten days continuously and that she would not repeat such act:; n future, the appeal was allowed and the impugned order of the Hrgh Court 4 was set aside and as a result, the proceedings before the trial Court were quashed.

8. The record reveals that the allegations pertain to the offences under Sections 498-4 of lpC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dp Act. Though the counsel argued that there are no specific incidents of harassment stated by the de_facto complainant and also the dates are not mentioned, the incidents of harassment by the petitioners are narrated in the complaint. As pointed out by the learned Additionar pubric prosecutor, the statement of one of the panchayat elder also supports the version of the de_facto complainant. However, the veracity of the witrtess can be looked by the trial court. This court is, therefore, not incrined to interfere with the judicial process and is constrained under Section 4g2 o,f Cr.P.C. not to go into details of evidentiary aspects.

9. Accordingly, this Criminal petition is disposed of with a direction that the learned Magistrate shall proceed with the trial at the earliest and decide the matter on its own merits, without being influenced by any of the observations nrade by this Court. However, the attendance of the petitioner is dispensed with before the trial Court, unless their presence is specifically I ,-/r/ ) required during the course of the trial, provided t.rat they are represented by their counsel on every date of hearrr<;. Pending miscellaneous applications, i,f an,1, shall stand closed ]D/-A..IAYASREE REGISTRAR ASSIS I ,^T //TRUE COPY// { ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The I Addl First Class Magistrate, Armoor. 2. the Station House Officer, Bheemgal police Station, Nrzitmabad. 3. One CC to SRI PONNAM ASHOK GOUD Advocate [OpU()] 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC. PROSECUfOR, High Court for the Sitate of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies ?R/PSL /W HIGH COURT DATED:1 110812025 --: .1;.t '----t:-- \ - ^--_:- i - r tr, ,'^ ': ' ?:l stp luc t,.j ,J \ ORDER CRLP.No.10110 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITIOT'I 1 C\yi \{