The High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. 2 ...PETITIONERYACCUSED NO.2 IIrg-SJqte of Telangana, Rep. , by public prosecutor, High Court for the State ot I etangana at Hyderabad Raaza sami, wo Mohammed Kamran Hussain, og"o'JIf"SI3[?.ENT Housewife, R/o H. No 19- 2- 2stN1i6, M;dJ i&?iiloriy, Jahanuma, Falaknuma, Hyderabad. No'1

...RESPONDENT NO.2/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT Petition under Section_ Z2g of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal F"ii,on, the High C;;;;;; be pleased to quash the charge sheet in c. c. ruo. ior l ot zoiz rg"inirih6 Petitioner / Accused No. 2 on the fire of xv nJoriionar cnier rueiroporiian Magistrate at Hyderabad l.A. NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section_ 4g2 of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of crounds of Criminit Fetition, th" H,gt-id;il;;; !e nleiggo to grant stay of ail further proceedings inciuoing ,pp""irn." ,grinri the Petitioner /Accused No. 2 in c. c. No. tdrl ot zoiz, on tne tie JiiV Additional Chief Mekopotitan Magistrate at HyderabaJ This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri sK ASHRAF, Advocate for the petitioner and sRr. JTTHENDER RAo vEERAMALLA, Additional Pubric prosecutor on beharf of the Respondent No.1 and None Appeared for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: OROER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DE'/ EADA CRIMINAL PETITION N 012758 OF 202! ORDER This Criminal petition is filed by the petitioner_ar: used No.2 seeking to quash the proceedings agarnst her in C.C. Jo.76.l 1 of 2022 on the file of learned XV Additional Chief l/ -.tropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the offer< es under Sections 4984, 406 and 506 of l.p.C and Section 6 of ihe Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Heard Sri SK Ashraf, learned counsel for the pet ioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additiort rl public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 _State. ln spite of service of notice, none appears for rr spondent 3 No.2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submittec that the petitioner herein is accused No.2 and is the mothe. in_law of respondent No.2-de faclo complainant and that she ner,t r resided with the de facto complainant and her husband r.e. accused No.1 . He further submitted that the present complainr s foisted against the petitioner with all false allegations of harassr,ent. He r fu(her submitted that the petitioner herein is suffering with kidney \ 1 bTD..I Crl I'.No 12758 o12025 diseases. He further submitted that the de facto complainant and accused No.'1 used to reside in Jeddah, while the petitioner is a resident of lndia. There are no specific allegations of harassment against the petitioner herein. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings in the present C.C. against the petitioner herein.

5. Learned Additional public prosecutor submitted that the allegations made in the complaint shows that the petitioner used to speak to the de faclo complainant through web-cam and scold her. He, therefore, prayed to pass appropriate orders in the Criminal Petition.

6. Perused the record 7 A thorough perusal of the complaint and 161 Cr.p C. statements point out only a bare allegation against the petitioner herein that she and accused No.'l maintained cordial relationship with the de facto complainant for a short span of 1S days and thereafter, the petitioner started misbehaving and ill{reating the de facto complainant on petty matters and that when the de facto complainant and accused No.1 were at Jeddah, the petitioner used to talk on web-cam from lndia and instigate accused No..l . J ETD.J alrl. \o. 127i8 o12025 But for these bald allegations, there are no speci 'i ; averments and specific incidents of harassment as alleged by he de facto complainant. The record further discloses that the petitioner is aged about 65 years, who is a house-wife living in lr< ia, while the de facto complainant and her husband live at Jeddair. B. In Dara Laxminarayana v. State of Te langana & anotherl, it was held by the Honourable Apex Court that rf there are omnibus allegations against the petitioners an I no specific incidents of harassment are made out, the proceecli rgs need to be quashed. lt was held that: "25 A mere reference to the names of family members ir case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific a indicating their active tnvolvement should be nipped in the b well-recognrzed fact borne out of judicial expeflence, th, often a teodency to implcate all the members of the husbaf when domestrc drsputes aflse out of a matrimontal dis({ generalizdd and sweeplng accusattons unsupported b\ evidence or partrcularized allegations cannot form the cflminal prosecutron. Courts must exercise caution in suc'l prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process z criminal egations rd. lt is a lhere is l's family 'd. Such conc rete )asis for cases to rd avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members."

9. ln the light of the above said decision and irr view of the above held discussion, continuation of proceedings. against the ' 2024 tNsc a53 I I 4 DID.J Crl.P.No. t2758 of2025 petitioner herein in the absence of specific allegations would be an abuse of process of law.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C No.761 1 of 2022 on the file of learned XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed against the petitioner herein. f\iliscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/-C.OEEPIKA SISTANT REGISTRAE- -_ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, Hyderabad District

2. The Station House Officer, Women Police Station, Charminar, Hyderabad District

3. One CC to SRI SK ASHRAF Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies (+ VM/PSL HIGH COURT DATED: 2411112025 ORDER CRLP.No.12758 of 2025 \ M.i,t , r-) ,. '.:.- \.. ti, ALLOWNG THE CRIMINAL PETITION I ?+ Io 1F