The High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana,, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. ...Respondent

2. Bheemanapally Pavani Haritha, Wo. B.John Pravegn, fg_ed_abo9!.-31 Yrs' Occupatiori. H6memaker, C/o. Laxmi Mega Township, 127,, Road No.8' Ragahnaguda, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ...RespondenUDefacto4omplainant 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 call for the records relating in C.C.No.2808 of 2023 on the file of tll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rangareddy District, At L.B.Nagar and consequently quash the same against the Petitioner/Accused No.S. 1 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 grant stay of all further proceedings including the appearance of the Petitioner/Accused No.5 in C.C.NO.2808 0t 2023 0n the file of lll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rangareddy District At L.B.Nagar, pending disposal of the quash petition. This Petition coming on for hearing upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri PONAMPELLI RAVI, Advocate for the petitioner and the sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1, and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the I THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA -1224s This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner - accused No.S seeking to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.28O8 of 2023 on the file of the leamed lll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at L.B-Nagar, registered for the offence under Section 498-4 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "lPC") and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short "DP Act, 1961").

2. Heard Sri Ponampali Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State.

3. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein is arrayed as A@used No.S, who happens to be the sister-in-law of the de facto complainant. He further submitted that the petitioner is manied and has been residing in Kolkata, as stated even in the charge sheet and that she never resided with the de facto complainant and Accused No.1 at any point of time. He submitted that the petitioner never harassed the de facto complainant and has been falsely implicated with bald allegations, without there being any specific 2 a, averments of harassment against her. Therefore, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

4. On the other hand, the leamed Additional public prosecutor submifted that the allegations are made only against the elder sister-in- law, and that there are also specific allegations against this petitioner as per the statement of LW.l. He further prayed to pass appropriate orders.

5. Perused the record. The recitals of the complaint and the charge sheet disclose only a singleJine allegation to the effect that, on hearing the words of Accused Nos.2, 4, and 5, Accused No.1 used to abuse, beat, and harass the de facto complainant mentally and physically. The petitioner herein is Accused No.S; however, except for the statement of LW.1, there is no specific incident of harassment, nor are there any specific allegations made against the petitioner. The Apex court has held in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. sfafe of reranganar and the said case is refened in RaTesh Chaddha Vs. Sfafe of llttar pradesh2, the relavant paragraphs extracted as under: "A mere reference to the narnes of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimoniai dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement shoutd be nipped in the bud. tt is a well reagnised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is oftei a tendency to impliiate r (202s) 3scc 73s z 2025 SCC Online SC 1.094 3 all the members of the husband's family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial disqrd. Such gercralised and xreeping accusafibns unsuppqted by @nqete evklen@ u partialari*d attegatkns cannot form the basis fq qiminat Coads must exercise caution in suctt cases fo Wvent mrbuse, d lqal provisions and the legal proess and :athid unne@ssary harassment of innoent family members. ln'the pre*nt case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the memfurs of the family of appellant No.l have been living in different cities and have not resided.in the matrimonial house of appellant No.l aN respondent No.Z herein. Hene, they cannot be dragged into qiminal pro*cution aN the same would b an abuse of fhe process of the law in the absene of specific allegations made against each of them.'

6. Therefore, in light of the aforementioned discussion and relying upon the cited decisions, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner amounts to an abuse of process of law and is liable to be quashed.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proccedings against the petitioner/accused No.S in C.C.No.28O8 of 2023 on the file of the learned lll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, are hereby quashed. 8. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. To, SD/- S.IilALLIKAJUNA //TRUE COPY" SECTION OFFICER

1. The lll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, 2. The Station House Officer, Saroornagar WPS Police Station, Ractakonda. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTj

4. one CC to SRI PONAMPELLI RAVI, Advocate IOPUC] 5. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:1111112025 'r ir -) o i.) .,.( * i rlE S L{, 14: 18BEIm, * :i !)^ T(..1{ F:Q (. r' 'v ?_ a A ORDER CRLP.No.12245 ot 2025 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION q J