High Court · 2025

;g:rl3'#'+1r"R,f;niu' Mohd lmran Khan (O lmran Khan, S/o. Mohammad lqbal Khan, Aged about 43 years, Occ: Private J6b, (Petitioners No.5 and 6 are.R/o. H.no. 12_2-2g9/8, Murad Nagar, Near post Office, Asif Nagar, Hyderabad. Smt. Afsha Aara @ Tabassum, Wo. Syed lmran, Aged about 37, Occ.. Household. Ryo H no. 12-2-4671, Zebabash, HrhJtuirurgl;; HiN;s"r, Hyderabad. Syed lmran, S/o. Sved chouse, Aged about 36 years, Occ.. Employee at Saudi Arabia, Presenttv R/ir. suoekra'ei-ftoSJi ks"i,'p?,i'anert R/o. H.No..l2_2_46/1, Zebabash, Humiyun Nagar, esii N;#;, il;;,=;"0 " "''

9. Smt. Asma Aara, Wo. Mohammed Zakiullah Shareef, Aged About 36 years. Occ.. Doctor at K.s.A, presenuy nro. nrniJan, iriJ'diiv]'r.si.A; #;;;"i ff;l i,i- 425, NACO Residency, cJooi rvraltJpui rrrr.jnj,p#l,ir, Hyderabad. l0 Mohammed Zakiulah Shareef, S/o Mohammed safiuflah Shareef, Aged 34 years, occ: Doctor at K.S.A. nyo. etiraoin, i;"i Ciil i]d,q, p"rrrnent d/o. 12-2_42b, NACO Residency, Guddi rvratr<ipur, nienOiirtirii,,'riiourrura. 11' smt Asra shaheen. D/o. Mohammad yunus, Aged 32 years, occ. Househord, R/o. 2-107, Subhash Nagar, Batapur noao, o[ai,.,iaoXi]diriri"t Nlro"o,'M;#;"Jhilr:. ...PET|T|ONERS/ACCUSEDS No. 1 to 11 AND

1. The State of Telangana, represented by its Public Prosecutor High court for the State of Telangana at HYderabad.

2. Smt. Nasreen Begum, Wo. Md. ldris Shaikh, aged-about 34 years' occ-- Household' R/o.H.No.8-1-147, G.F Khan Cottage, Line Gally, Barkathpura, Ntzamaoao' Telangana-503001 ...RES,.NDENT'/..MPLA'NANTS a Petitionundersection4S2ofCr.P.Cprayingthatinthecircumstances siated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in c.c. No.1178 ol 2023 pending on the file.of court of the lAddl Judicial Fiist Class Magistrate, at Nizamabad against the Petitioners No.1 to 11/Accused No.1 to 1'1 to pass l.A. NO: 1 OF 2023 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 pleased to stay all further proceedings including the appearance of the Petitioners irto.i to 11lAccused No.1 to 11 in C.C. No.1178 ot 2023 pending on the file of court of the lAddl Judicial First class Magistrate. at Nizamabad during the pendency of the above quash petition and to pass This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri c. Damodar Reddy, learned Senior counsel representing sri umakanth Reddy. V, Advocate for the p;titioners and of Mr. E. Ganesh, learned Asst. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and Sri Deepak Mishra, appears for Respondent No 2 The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.1 2070 0F 20.23 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is frled under Section 4g2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ,Cr.p.C.J by the petitioners, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.1778 of 2023, pending on the frle of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Nizamabad.

2. Heard Sri C.Damodar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing learned counsel for the petitioners ald Sri Deepak Mishra, learned counsel representing for the respondent No.2 and Sri E. Ganesh, learned Assistant public prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.l-State. perused the materia-l available on record.

3. Brief facts of the case are that accused No.1 married respondent No.2 on l6.lL.2O2O and out of their wedlock, they were blessed with one male child. Thereafter, matrimonial disputes arose between accused No.l and respondent No.2. It is stated that accused No.l, along with other accused, besides harassing respondent No.2 physically and mentally, also used to threatetf /her with dire consequences for walt of additional 2 dowry. It is a,lso stated that accused No.l married respbndent No.2 by suppressing the fact that earlier accused No. 1 a_lready married twice. Henrce, a case was registered, uide Crime No. 13 of 2023 before the wpS Nizamabad polic6'a,d after compretion of investigation, charge sheet was filed uid.e C.C.No. ll1g of 2023 before the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Nizamabad' for the offences punishable under Section 49g-A of the Indiaa penal Code, 1g6O (for short, .the IpC) and Section 4 of the Dowry prohibition Act, 196 1 (for short, .the ActJ. Seeking to quash the said proceedings, this Criminal petition is liled. 4. Learned counsei for the petitioners frslly submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they are no way concerned with the alleged offences. He secondlg submitted that though there is no corroborative evidence, the petitioners were implicated in the case with farse a,d fabricated arlegations. He thtrd.ry submitted that since accused Nos.S to 11 were residing separately from accused No.l and respondent No.2, their names i.e., the names of accused Nos. 5 to 1 1 were deleted in the charge sheet ald that summons have been issued only to accused Nos. I to 4. He lastlg placed, relialce on the decision of Hon,ble Apex Court in l- 3 Geddam Jhansi and Anr qnd the State of Telangana and Orst arld prayed ttre Court to allow the Criminal Petition. 5 On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners stating that so far as accused Nos.S to 11 are concerned, protest petition has been frled before the trial Court and it is pending for adjudication. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sonu Gupta Vs.Deepak Gupta and Orsa and prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

6. In view of the rival submissions made by both the parties, this Court has perused the material available on record. It is apparent that the Investigating Officer deleted the names of accused Nos.S to 11 from array of the accused in the charge sheet as they are residing separately.from accused No.1 and respondent No.2 and that they are no way concerned with the alleged offences and that summons have been issued only to accused Nos.l to 4. It is alleged that accused No.l, along with other accused, harassed respondent No.2 physically, mentally and also threatened her with dire consequences for walt of additional dowry. Accordingly, respondent No.2 hled protest ' 2oz5 tttsc t6o ' t'tanU/SC/OtZl lZOts t I petition and the Ieerneci tria_l Court took cognizance of the offences registered ald ordered issuance of summons uide order dated 23.0g.2023. Hence, the Criminal petition is dismissed as infructuous in respect of petitioner Nos.5 to 11/accused Nos.5 to 11. \ 7" Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if liberty is gra,ted to the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4/accused Nos.1 to 4 to file discharge petition before the tria-l court to raise the contentions made before this Court, before the learned tria-l Court for examination of the materials, to adjudicate in accordance with law. On hling of such petition, the trial Court is directed to sarre on merits as expeditiously as possible, dispose of the 1n accordalce with law 8 With the above direction, the Crimina,l petition 1S disposed of Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Criminal Petition shall a-lso stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR 1 SECNOIi,OFFICER To

1. The I Addl Judicial First Class Magistrate. at Nizamabad 2. The Station House Officer, Women Police Station , Nizamabad. 3. One CC to Sri Umakanth Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad

5. Two CD coPies E' II D'L^H HIGH COURT DATED:O710412025 ORDER CRLP.No.1207O ot 2023 E , (:: C '.'a- \.i CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISPOSED OF i' - \-*,.___- _---_ : , gF T lj7. :-r 4 r:.. ii , .*$ s\ \\ I rr _,..i .:!' .''' r