The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that rn the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Call for the records relating to the proceedings in CC.No.674 OF 2024 in Crime No. 5812024 on the file of Honble lll Additional Junior Civil Judge - Cum - lll Addl.Judicial Magistrate Of First Class, Ranga Reddy District in respect of offences under section 498(A) of lndian Penal Code 1860 and Sec.3 and 4 DP Act, Quash the same in the interest of justice ;r:..*+*_'--l .'/ / ,/ LA. NO:2OF 2025 Petition under sectron 528 of BNSS praying that in he circumstances stated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds of criminai petition,the iigh court may be pleased to Stay att further proceedings in CC.No.674 OF )_ )i4 in Crime No. 5812024 on the file of Honbte l Additional Junior civil Judge-o m- r Addt Judicial Magistrate Of First Class, Ranga Reddy District or any con I rcted proceedings before the competent court. pending disposar of the above crrnr ral peiition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing ), Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argumcr VISHNU KANTH ,Advocate for the petitroner and Sri. Jitend: the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respond-. appeared for the Respondent No. 2. Memorandum of ts of Sri KAVALI Rao Veeramalla. rt No 1 and none The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.13156 ot 2025 ORDER

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.674 of 2024, on the file of the learned lll Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-lll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District, registered for the offences under Sections 498-4 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Heard Sri K.Vishnu Kanth, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 as well as Sri Jitender Rao Veeramalla, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1 -State

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner No.1 and the defacto complainant have never stayed together and that there are general allegations leveled against the petitioners herein. The petitioners are the husband and in-laws of thq defacto complainant and that they never harassed the defacto complainant as alleged by her, much less, for want of additional 2 dowry and therefore prayed to quash the proceedil;s against the petitio ners

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor hali submitted that there are specific allegations raised by the defactc lomplainant in her statement and in the complaint that the petit )ners used to demand Rs.5.00,000/- of additional dowry for establ t hing a Medical Shop for accused No.1 . The incidents of harass nent are also narrated and that not only the statement of -W1 , but the independent lvitnesses were also recorded by the pr: ;ecution during the course of investigation and therefore prayed :o dismiss the petition

5. The learned petitioners'counsel, however, ha; relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in P.V.Kri ;hnabhat and Another Vs.Sfafe of Karnataka and othersl corrr that the =nding orders passed by a Family Court in the same subje r matter have to be taken note of while deciding the cases filed undrrr Section 498-4. With the said observations, considering the order s passed by the Family Court. the proceedings against the petitioners were quashed . I 2025 SCC Ontine SC 4tt4 3

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has brought to the notice of this Court that the decree of divorce granted by the learned Family Court Judge -cum- lll Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, in this case is an ex-parte decree.

7. A perusal of the record reveals the said fact and also the contents of the complaint and the statement of LW1 do point out specific allegations that the petitioners have demanded additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and it is alleged that they have harassed the defacto complainant for want of said dowry and the statements of LWs 5 & 6, who are the village elders, also point out the fact of conducting Panchayats to settle the issues; but that the petitioners could not mend their ways. The truth or otherwise in the allegations and the statements of these witnesses has to be tested during the course of trial. Hence, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the Criminal Petition by dispensing with the appearance of the petitioners before the Trial Court.

8. Hence, the Criminal Petition is disposed of dispensing with the presence of the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 before the Trial Court provided that the petitioners are represented through an Advocate on every date of hearing and that they shall be present before the 4 ,r:";i' Trial Court whenever they are specifically required d I ing the course of trial I Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall s:i nd <;losed SD/.'- SRINIVASAREDDY ASSIT TANT REGISTRAR G /TTRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The lll Addltronal Juntor Crvil Judge - Cum - lll Addl'Jud ( al Magistrate Of First Class Ranga Reddy Distrrct

2. The Station House Officer' Saroornagar WPS (Rachako da)' Rachakonda 3 One CC to SRI KAVALI VISHNU KANTH Advocate [O: JC] 4TwoCCstothePUBL|CPRoSECUToR'Highcourtf()ltheStateof TJlangana Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two GD CoPies AI{I\4/PSI- $) HIGH COURT DATED: 13t1O1202s ORDER CRLP.No.13156 of 2025 .:" \tn'\-, [: tii, ?trfi ,,I ,t -,-/ DISPOSING OF THE CRLP q