He further relied upon the decision of the Apox Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. Sfafe of Telanganal. He

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana Through P.S. Kodad Town, ...Respondent

2. Bolagam Bhavani., Wio B.Srinivas Aged 28 yrs., Occ. Pharmacist R/o. H.No. Vinayak nagar, Kodad Town, Suryape{ District. Ph. 88974-95590. ...RespondenUDe-facto Complainant 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 the F.l.R. No. 234 of 2025 dated O4.08.2025 on the file of the Police Station Kodad town registered U/S. 85 BNS, 3,4 DPA against the Petitioners/accused no. 2 and 3 as illegal, afbitrary, afterthought, abuse of process of law, and violative of Articles 14,21 of lhe Constitution of lndia- t.A. NO: 20F 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BN$S praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Climinal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in F.l.R. No. 234 of 2025 dated 04.08.2O25 on the file of the Police Station Kodad Toi,vn ,registered U/S. 85 BNS, 3,4 DPA against the Petitioners/accused no. 2 and 31 including their arrest. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argutnents of Sri T Surya satish, Advocate for the Petitioners and sri E Ganesh, Assis,tant public prosecutor on behalf of Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Rerspondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER 1 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION N .10454 0F 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners - accused Nos.2 and 3 seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.234 of 2025 on the file of P.S. Kodad Town, puryapet District, registered for the offence under Section 85 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS, 2023") and Sectipns 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short'DP Adt")

2. Heard the submissions of Sri TiSurya Satish, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Erigi Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State

3. The learned petitioner coungel has submitted that the petitioners are facing false allegations and that the petitioner No.'l who is the accused No.2 is the elder brother of the husband of de facto complainant, while petitioner No.2 is the accused No.3 who is the mother-in-law of the de faofo complainant. He further subqritted that they never lived logether with the de facto complainant and they never harassefl her, he .therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings. / ) ,l

4. He further relied upon the decision of the Apox Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. Sfafe of Telanganal. He: submitted that there are no specific overt acts of the petitioneis, the de facto complainant has not narrated any specific incidents of harassment and hence, in the light of the said decision he has prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has opposed submitting that there are specific allegations alleging that the de facto cornplainant was restrained in a roont ard was harassed physically, hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Perused the record.

7. The complaint and the 161 Cr.P.C. statement disclose that the de facto complainant was wrongfully confined in a room in Chinnabonala Village and that her husband and the petitioners herein i.e. the elder brother-in-law and mother-in-law harassed her continuously and abused her in filthy language and bet her with hands and threatened with dire consequences. \ ' (2025) 3 scc 715 3

8. ln Dara Lakshmi Narayana's case (supra), 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 police found her whereabouts, she was allegedly living with someone and that after being counselled, she returned to her matrimonial home. It was further submitted that the wife addressed a letter to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirupathur Sub-Division requesting to close the complaint made by appellant No.1 wherein she admitted that she had left her matrimonial house 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. lt was further submitted that respondent No.2 again left the matrimonial house leaving appellant No.1 and children behind. Then the husband having no other option has issued a legal notice seeking divorce by mutual consent. Thus, as a counter blast the present FIR was filed by respondent No.2/wife. Further, in the said case, there were no specific allegations against the appellants and the respondent No.2 left her matrimonial home on her own. ln that backdrop, the Apex Court has t held Yhat when there are no specific allegations against the appellants, the proceedings need to be quashed. Thus, the appeal ,/ 7i I 4 was alloweC and the impugned order of the High Court was set aside and as a resuit, the proceedings before the trial Court were quashed. Therefore, the facts of the cited decision differ with flrose in the case on hand. Hence, the same is not applicable to the case on hand.

9. ln the facts and circumstances of the case, it is seen that the aliegations are under Section 85 BNS and Sections; 3 and 4 of the DP Act and the punishment prescribed for the said offences alleged against the petitioners is less than seven (07) years. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the petitioners tc appear before the lnvestigating Officer on or before Oi.OS.ZOZS between 11.00 a m. and 05:00 p.m and in turn, the lnvestigating Officer is directed to follol the procedure laid down under Section 35 (3) of the BNSS (previously section 41-A of Criminal procedure Code 1g73) and also the guidelines formulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Oourt of lndia in Arnesh Kumar y. Stafe of Bihal scrupulously Hovuever, the petitioners shail submit their defense and co-operate with the lnvestigating Officer as and when required by furnishing information and produce all relevant documents/material required for the purpose of the investigation and the lnvestigating Officer shall '1zot+) s scc zt3 consider the same and shall complete the investigation strictly in accordance with law.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. lVliscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- AHMED ABOULLAH KHAN S TANT REGISTRAR. //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, '1 . The Principal Judicial First Class Magiqtrate at Kodad 2. The station House Officer, Kodad town Police Station, Surypaet 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

4. One CC to SRI T SURYA SATISH, Advocate IOPUCI 5. Two CD Copies ADK HIGH COURT DATED:2810812025 ORDER CRLP.No.10454 of 2O2S \tE SIA r{ c I i ltP ?s6 J'!-kt , . --"-'' ,.' . l. .-- . .lit' ',:i . - ..:: . -" . ,.'Ji ' -a: * +. DISPOSING OF THE CRLP -,4 4