The High Court · 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 pleased to Quash the Charge Sheet in C.C. No. 451 of 2024, on the file of the Hon'ble lAddl. Junior Civil Judge Cum lX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-4 of IPC and 4 of DP Act, against the Petitioners. l.A. NO: 1OF 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 pleased to stay of all further proceedings including personal appearance of the petitioners in C C. No- 451 of 2024, on the file of the Hon'ble I Addl Junior Civil Judge Cum lX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-4 of IPC and 4 of DP Act, against the Petitioners. This Petrtion coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the errguments of Sri G VASANTHA RAYUDU, Advocate for the Petitioner and Ms Shalini Saxena, the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Resporrclent No. 1 and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.1 22 35 of 2025 ORDER This criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 & 3 in CC No.451 of 2O2S on the file of the l-Additional Junior Civil Judge cum lX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally, foi the offences under Sections 498-4 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short 'DP Act').

2. Heard Mr.G. Vasantha Rayudu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms.Shalini Saxena, learned Assistant public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners herein are the parents-in-law of the de facto complainant. The marriage between accused No.1 and the de facto complainant is a love marriage and thus, there is no element of dowry involved and that she never resided with the petitioners herein and that the petitioners never harassed the de facto complainant at any point of time. The petitioners are old aged and are suffering with many ailments. He therefore, submitted that the complaint is filed with all T 2 ETD,J Crl.P. No.12235 of 2025 false allegations without any specific overt ;acts against the petitioners herein and therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings.

4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor ras submitted that there are specific incidents of harassment narra':ed by the de facto complainant. The prosecution could examine the independent witnesses and recorded their statements. She, therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record

6. The contents of the complaint and the ,:harge sheet point out specific allegations against the petitioners thal they used to taunt the de facto complainant for want of dowry. The charge sheet further discloses that LW.4 is an independent witness, wro also stated with regard to the harassment made by the petitiorers herein. The veracity of the witnesses needs to be tested during the course of trial. The learned counsel for the petitioners hzrs relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kamal and others v. State of Gujarat and anotherl. ln the said case, the allegations against the parents-in-law were only of extending taunts and of not parting with the money for managing household expenses Specific details 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 440 -) ETD,J Crl.P- No.12235 of 2025 in respect of those taunts were not disclosed. Moreover, a few taunts here and there were a part of every life which for happiness of the family were usually ignored. lnterestingly, as per her own allegations in the FlR, the complainant therein admitted that when she reported those issues to her parents and uncle, she was counselled to bear patience. ln the circumstances, no case was made out to proceed against the parents-in-law, the appellant Nos.2 and 3 therein

7. ln the present case, it is made out that it was a love marriage and subsequent to the marriage, the de facto complainant joined the in-laws house and they were blessed with two children Due to the harassment made by the petitioners herein, the accused No.1 and the de faclo complainant took a rented portion at Vengalrao Nagar and got separated from the petitioners. The petitioners were staying at Yousufguda and even then, the accused No.1 used to harass the de facto complainant for want of additional dowry and subsequently, accused No.1 has left the de facto complainant and the children and went to his parents house and for some period he used to visit them and later on stopped visiting them and as she learnt that her husband is living with another lady, she questioned accused Nol, he replied that he was happy with that <:rl P No 12235 ot,,E-f \ lady Thus, the ailegations point out the incioents of harassment during her stay with her in-raws and it is specificary pointed out that due to the unbearable harassment from the in_laws, they got separated The truth in the said aregations ancr the veracity of the witnesses should be tested during the course of trial. Hence, it is not a fit case to interfere with the said process at this stage. However, it is deemed appropriate to dispense v/ith the attendance of the petitioners before the trial court. B. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is disp,tsed of dispensing with the attendance of the petitioners before the lriar court provided they are represented by a counsel before the tral court on every date of hearing and shall appear before the trial courl whenever their presence is required during the course of trial. [Vliscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shalt stand closed Sd/.AHMED ABDULLA KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, Cyberabad at KLrkatpally.

1. The l Addl Junior Civil Judge Cum lX Additionat MetroF,olitan Magistrate, 2. The Station House Officer, WpS-lT Corridor (Cyberaba i) police Station, 3 One CC to SRl. G VASANTHA RAYUDU Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to the PUBLTC PROSECUTOR High Court for tr.re State of Cyberabad. Telangana [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies ?$c. N R\,1/BSR t & HIGH COURT DATED: 1511012025 ) ORDER CRLP.No.12235 of 2025 \ u' J o o 21l{Otlg \{,( 7 t o ESpAt l rre! { t DISPOSING OF THE CRLP A{C,,, q \ ril:-{