The High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Courtof . . . Judicature at Hydeiabad Thiouih W.P.S. Srirampur, Rangareddy District' Telangana.

2. Gattagalla Nirmala, Wo. Prasanth, Aged about f9-Y.ears, Occ' House wife, Rfo. N-agitta Village, Madgul Mandal, Rangareddy District' ...RESPON DENTS/COMPLAI NANT Petition under section 528 OF BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the Higth court may be pieaseO to quash the charge sheet registered vide impugned C'C' No' 571 of 2ozl, d^t"a'24.o7 .2024 registered U/sec. 85 of BNS and Sec. 3, 4 of DP Act on the file of the tl Addl. Jud-icial First class magistrate, at Amangal, Rangareddy District, Telangana. l.A. NO:,2OF 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 pieased to grant stay of all further proceedings including dispense yq gt' fetitioners pi.".n"" in furtherance of the charge sheet registered vide C.9 No. il't ot zOzq, dt.24.07.2024 registered U/Sec. 85 of BNS and sec. 3, 4 of DP Act on the file of the Il Addl. Judicial First class magistrate, at Amangal, Rangareddy District, Telangana. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri R MANGULAL, Advocate for the Petitioners and SRt JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALT-A, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent No.1 The Court made ffie following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.1lO85 ol2025 ORDER: This petition is fited seeking quashment of the C.C.No.571 of 2024 on the file of leamed Judicial First Class Magistrate at Amangal, against the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4. 2. Heard Mr.R.Mangulal, leamed counsel for petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State. 3. Leamed counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are facing false allegations. Petitioner No.1 is the aunt of accused No.1, and petitioner No.2 is the sister of accused No.1. Further, petitioner No.1 is manied, is not living with them, and is innocent. He further submitted that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners. He further relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Data Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telanganal, where in it is held that the FtR should reveal the specific details as to the time, date, place or manner in wtrich the alleged harassment has occuned. As the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations, the apex Court set ' (2025) 3 scc 235 2 aside the order of the trhl Court and has allowed the quash petition.

4. Learned Additional public prosecutor opposed the petition, submitting that the statements of witnesses have not been filed along with the petition, and that the recitals of the charge sheet reveal specific allegations against the petitioners. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. Perused the record. 6. The leamed petitioner counsel has relied upon a decision in Dan Lakshmi Narayana v. Sfafe of Tetangana (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 pollce found her whereabouts, she was allegedly living with som@ne and that after being counsefled, she refumed to her matrimonial home. lt was further submitted that the wife addressed a lefter to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirupathur Sub-Division requesting to close the complaint made by appellant No.1 wherein she admifted that she had left her matrimonial house after quarelling with appellant No.1 because of one Govindan, with whom she was talking over the 3 phone for the past ten days continuously and that she would not repeat such acts in future. lt was furher submifted 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 @nsent. Thus, as a counter blast the present FIR was filed by respondent No.Zwife. Further, in the said case, there wqre no specific allegations against the appellants. ln that backdrop, the Apex Court has held that when there are no specific allegations against the appellants and there is admission made by the respondent No.2-wife that she had left her matrimonial house after quanelling 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 suctt acts in future, ' the appeal was allowed and the impugned order of the High Court was set aside and as a result, the proceedings before the trial Gourt were quashed.

7. The record reveals that the copy of the complaint and the charge sheet are on the file under C.C.No.571 ot 2024 for lhe offences under Sections 85 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 (lor \ sho('BNS') and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry prohibition Act, 196i (for short 'DP Act). Though the counsel argued that there are no specific incidents of harassment stated by the de_facto complainant and atso the dates are not mentioned, the incidents of harassment by the petitioners are nanated in the cornplaint. The veracity of witnesses, as well as the truth or othenrvise of the allegations made in the complaint, shall be determined during the course of trial. 8. Accordingly this Criminal petition is disposed of dispensing with the presence of the petitioners before the trial court 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 trial. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. L.VIJAYA LAXMT ,,TRUE COPY'/ s To,

1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Amangal,Ranga Reddy District. 2. The Station House Officer, police Station Madgul,Rangareddy District, Telangana, Rachakonda iomiriisidnliriJigvvv.' 3. One CC to SRt R MANGULAL Advocate [OpUCl 4. Two CCs to PUBLTC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Tetangana, 5. Two CD Copies at Hyderabad. [OUT] I rs' GR/psl HIGH COURT DATED:2910812025 / i I I ORDER CRLP.No.1108S ot 2025 1l'lE si Ih (i o 19 0tr m25 ,'., , ;ii .:.// \ .'lr:s.,". -.. ,.-...:.-,-.-..,. -\' ,i ,,/r'' i; i ,.) \, DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION q \^