The High Court · 2025

1 Korukonda Sriphani Ra1, S/o K.Srinivas Bhattar, Age. 36 Yrs, Occ. C.A, R/o H.No.1-8- 702414, Flal No. 403 AND 503, Vijetha Madhuram, Shankarmutt, Nallakunta, Hyderabad

2. Korukonda Sri Lakshmi, D/o K.Srinivas Bhattar, (Wrongly mentioned in charge sheet as Korukonda Sri Lakshmi Wo K.Sriphani) Age. 33 Yrs, Occ. C.A, R/o H.No.1-8-7024/4, Flat No. 403 AND 503, Vijetha Madhuram, Shankarmutt, Nallakunta, Hyderabad AND ...PETITIONERS/ACCUSEDS No. 2 &3 1 . The State of Telangana, Through SHO, Nagole Police Station, Rachakonda,, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, at Hyderabad 2. Battu Uma Maheswari, D/o. Battu Narsimha, OCC.House Wife Aged 28 years, R/o. FIat No. 311, C- Block, Metro Heights Apartments, Mamatha Nagar colony, Nagole ...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the clrcumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the PRC No. 85 of 2025 in FlR.No 209 ol 2025 dated 06.03.2025 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge Cum I Additional Judicial Magistrate Of First Class, Ranga Reddy District At L.B Nagar, against the Petitioners / Accused No. 2 and 3 is concerned, and to pass such other order or orders l.A. NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be to grant stay of all further proceedings in PRC No. 85 of 2025 in FlR.No.209 of 2025 dated 06.03.2025 on the file of lAdditional Junior Civil Judge Cum lAdditional Judicial Magistrate Of First Class, Ranga Reddy District At L.B Nagar, tn so far as the Petitioners / Accused No. 2 & 3 is concerned, and to pass such other order or orders This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Anup Koushik Karavadi, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 , and none appears for Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER *w THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEV EADA CRIMINAL PETITON No.11 802 ot 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-it ;cused Nos.2 & 3 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in I ,RC No.B5 of 2025 on the file of l-Additionat Junior Civil Judge cur r l-Additional Judicial [i/lagistrate of First Class at L.B. Nagar, : anga Reddy District, registered for the offences under Sections 412 lZO 504 and 506 read with 34 lPC.

2. Heard Sri Anup Koushik Karavadi, learned cc unsel for the petitioners and Sri Jrthender Rao Veeramalla, learrrr d Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitt 3d that there is no material on record to show that the petitionen; herein have committed the alleged offences and that in fac:. they have reprimanded the accused No.1 as they are the brothe.and sister of accused No.1 . Just because they are family members,. they cannot simply be roped into, to face the allegations under Sect :ns 504 and 506 lPC. He further submitted that the de facto corr )lainant has leveled false allegations against the petitioners herein ;t td therefore, he prayed to quash the proceedings against them. . \\ \\ 2 ETO,J ctl.P. No.l1802 0t 20?s

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the statement of LW 1-de facto complainant discloses that the petitioners herein have abused her in filthy language and threatened to kill her and also warned that if she goes to the police, they would share a private video of her and accused No.1 . He, thus, submitted that when there are specific allegations against the petitioners, the proceedings cannot be quashed against them.

5. Perused the record 6 The contents of the complaint points out the allegations against the petitioners stating that on promise of marriage, accused No.1 had physical relationship with the de facto complainant and on one occasion, she underwent abo(ion. Subsequently, the parents of accused No.1 and other family members decided to perform engagement, but after few days, the family members of accused No.1 including the petitioners herein started ignoring her. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the statement of LW.1 is an improvised version when compared to the recitals in the charge sheet. A comparative perusal reveals that in the complaint she stated that the petitioners have ignored her after fixing the engagement. But in her statement before police, she i : J ETD'J Crl P. No.118A2 ot 2A25 stated that the petitioners abused her in filthy I rnguage and threatened her that they would release a private video of herself and accused No.1 if she approaches the police When it c: nes to charge sheet,itismentionedthatthepetitionersonlearningtrerelationship of accused No.1 with the cle facto complaina' , they have reprimanded him. Though the learned counsel for he petitioners contends that it is an improvised version when cont rared with the contents of the complaint, the said improvements or r:r ntradictions, if any, can be tested during the course of trial Henc r , it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the petition by disper iing with the attendance of the petitioners before the trial court

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dispostl I of dispensing with the attendance of the petitioners before the tria ;ourt. provided they are represented by a counsel before the trial ;out1 on every date of hearing and they shall appear before the tria ;ourt whenever their presence is required during the course of trial' I Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall i and closed' //TRUE COPY// SD/.B.REKHA RANI AI;;ISTANT REGISTRAR \ .- -=- r$ icroN oFFtcER To,

1. The lAdditional Junior Civil Judge Cum I AdditionlvJ First Class, Ranga Reddy District At L. B Nagar, u(l )ial Magistrate Of

2. The Station House Officer, Nagole Police Station, Rachakr nda District.

3. One CC to Sri Anup Koushik Karavadi, Advocate [OPUC] 1,^ 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of 'l W u. ,*oCD Copies -.langana (OUT) I I I I i I i I I i I I l ! I I i I I I l r I t j 1 l l i i I HIGH COURT DATED:201'1112025 ORDER CRLP.No.11802 ot 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISPOSED OF \'' lHE S r,1 Ir r. Jilt 2[26 \, .JC * t\: Q.' " ,-.-., . 1' ) l _t,,: / *.':./ \u y0