The High Court · 2025

2. Smt. K. Divya, Wo Ra.ieshwar Rao, Aged about 22 years, Occ Housewife, R/o H.No.9-b-1 10, MarJthi Nagar, Champapet, Hyderabad, Telangana State. ...Respondents Petition under Section 528 of BNSS Act, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No.l in CC.No.2596 of 2019 on the file of the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad in the interest of justice. A. NO: 2 OF 2025 t. Petition under Section 528 of BNSS Act, 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 appearance of Petitioner/ Accused No.1 in cc.No.2596 0f 2019 0n the file of the XV Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above criminal Petition. -:'_.iFlq*!t:>/ _ This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusin! he Memorandum of Grounds.of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argurr :nts of Mr HABEEB ABUBAKAR ALHAIVED, Advocate for the Petrtioner and t/ . JITHENDER RAO VEERAMA.LLA, the Additional Public Prosecutor on beha f of respondent No.1 and None appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER w 1 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVIEADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.10203 OF 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner - accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2596 of 2019 on the file of the learned XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 4984,427, 324, 448,504, 506 read with Section 34 of the lndian Penal Code (for short "lPC") and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act

2. Heard the submissions of Sri Habeeb Abubakar Alhamed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State.

3. The learned petitioner counsel has submitted that the incidents narrated by the de faclo complainant in the complaint fall back to 2016 and 2017 and that an FIR is registered in 2018. The petitioner failed to explain the delay of one year in making a complaint, if at all the alleged incidents have occurred in 20 16 itself, she lhas not lodged any complaint immediately. Therefore, that itself shows the falsity in the complaint and therefore, prayed to t quash the proceedings against the petitioners )

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor hir submitted that the offence under Section 4984 of IPC is continuc r s in nature and concept of delay cannot be applied in such cases and further he has also submitted that the case was registered it 2017 itself and thereafter transferred to women police station. Tl r crime Number is 179 of 2017 which was transferred to women I tlice station on 1 1 09.201B and thus, it was renumbered as 211 of 2 )18 He further submttted that the complaint reveals the allegat c ns against the petitioner and also it is supported by statemen of L\&5 The evidence of LW5 who is a doctor of Osmania Genr r ll Hospital who treated the de facto complainant and her parents, v ould be crucial in this case, which can be evaluated during the co-'se of trial He therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The allegations rn the complaint point out the , :ffences under Sections 498A, 427 , 324, 448,504, 506 read with Se ction 34 of lpC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act, against the pet tioner-accused No.1 who is the husband of the de facto complainant r'i${.iF€!tz ir. /./ 3

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Dilawar Singh v. State of Delhil , wherein it was held that delay in filing the complaint because of police inaction has to be explained by calling for the records from the police. By relying on this decision, the counsel was emphasizing on the point that there is one year delay in the present case in lodging the complaint. However, it is borne out by record that the complaint was initially lodged in 2017 itself and thereafter transferred to women police station. The point of delay cannot be agitated in such cases. B Learned counsel also relied upon a decision of this Court in Crl.P.No 1316 of 2022, wherein the alleged offences were under Sections 323, 354,506 read with Section 34 of lPC lt was held that to prove the basic allegations against the petitioners, no single independent witness was examined by the police and that out of the 12 list of witnesses cited, five were the family members of the complainant who are interested witnesses and thus, the Court has quashed the petition i ' (2007) I2 scc 641 E i l I 4

9. ln this context it is pertinent to take note of le fact that LW5 in the charge sheet is a doctor r,vho treated the c/e /: :lo complainant and her parents and his evidence would be tested ri rring the course of trial. Therefore, the said decision cannot be mir le applicable to the facts of the present case. 10 ln view of the facts and circumstances, the I riminal petition is disposed of directing the rearned XV r.r ditionar chief lt/letropolitan Magrstrate at Hyderabad, to dispose r f C C.No.2596 of 2019 at the earliest, as it pertains to the year 1019, stricUy in accordance with law, without being influenced k y any of the observations made by this court. However, the ati ndance of the petitioner is dispensed with before the triar col1, unress his presence is specifically required by the trial Court dtrr ng the course of trial, provided that he shall be represented by I s counsel on every date of hearing. Miscellaneous applications pending, if an,, shall stand closed I SD/. U.SUDHA ASSI:i 'ANT REGISTRARa I ECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The XV - Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate a 'lydrbad, City 1 I I 1

2. The Station House Officer, Women Police Station, South Zone Hyderabad City.

3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to [vlr. HABEEB ABUBAKAR ALHAMED, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies I RC/PS]- \+ HIGH COURT { DATED: 2210812025 I I ORDER CRLP.No.10203 ot 2025 ,i .. ,:\ 20fr I,l: .' -: .2' -.t' The Criminal Petition is Disposed of gcar(4 h -r{tflt'