The High Court · 2025

1. The state of Telangana,, Represented through Public Prosecutor, High court of Telangana, HYderabad

2. Smt Gangi Priyanka,, Wo Kiran Kunpr aggd ?9 E'I:'.Occ' Housewife' R/o Kolkuipally Village Madgul Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. . RespondenUCom Plaina nts Petition under section 528 of B.N.S.S praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of crimtnal Petition, the High court may be pleased to quash the impugned proceedings in C C No 735 of 2023, on lhe file of the court of the Junior civrl J udge-cum-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Amangal. _- l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S praying tha in the crrcumstances stated in the It/emorandum of Grounds of Craminal Petitro r. the High Court may be pleased to grant ,rterrrn stay of all further proceedin;: rn C.C No. 735 of 2023, on the frle of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge-r.u m-Addrtjonal Judicial lvlagistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Amangal , including appearance and attendance of the petitroners / Accused tJos. 1 to 3, pending disposal of the abcve Criminal petition. This Petition comrng on for hearing, upon perusrng the Memorandum of Grounds of Crrrnrnal Petition and upon hearing :he arguments of Sri Rathan Singh tvl, Advocate for the Petitroner arrrJ Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla. Additional Publrc Prosecutor on behalf of the Fespoldent No.1 none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.13549 ot 2025 ORDER:- 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused in C.C.No.735 of 2023, on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Amangal, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-4' 323, 324 and 506 read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Heard Sri M.Muralidhar, learned counsel who argued on behalf of Sri [M.Rathan Singh, learned counsel on record for the petitioners as well as Sri Jitender Rao Veeramalla, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.'1 - State.

3. Learned petitioners' counsel submitted the defacto complainant has leveled all omnibus allegations against the petitioners herein and that there is no allegation of additional dowry harassment as she has not specified any amount alleged to have been demanded by the petitioners. He further submitted that the ,/ I I 2 ETD,J C .P.No.1i549 2025 date of offence alleged is 22.10.2023 while the ccrplaint is lodged on 27.10.2023 and that there is abnormal delay tn Iodging the complaint. He 1'urther submitted that there are improvemenfs in the statement of LW1 when compared to the complrtint and that no material in the charge sheet discloses any offen:e against the petitioners. He therefore prayed to quash the pror;e:edings against the petitioners 4 The learned Additionar pubric prosecutor ha s submitted that the date of offence is specifically mentioned in the complaint as 22.102023, on which date the defacto complainant is alleged to have been beaten with a wire by the petitioners and the defacto complainant has sustained simple injuries and wrrs treated by a Doctor who has issued liledical Certificate. The allegation with regard to demand for additional dowry is also specifically made and that there are no improvements in the statemerrt of defacto complainant when compared to her complaint. The delay is also explained stating that subsequent to the aileged inr;irlent, she was necked out cf the house and she went to her parent,s house and after consulting the elders, the prcsent complaint has treen filed. He therefore prai.ecl to dismlss the cetition. I t ETD,J Crl.P.No.1i549 2025

5. Perused the record. The contents of the complaint and the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. do point out specific allegations of beating the defacto complainant on 2210.2023 by lhe petitioners and that the defacto complainant has sustained simple injuries. The Doctor who treated the petitioner is listed as LW9 and she has issued Medical Certificate in support of the alleged simple injuries. The strength of the medical evidence and the veracity of the witnesses need 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 petitioner before the trial Court.

6. Hence, the Criminal Petition is disposed of dispensing with the presence of the petitioners/accused 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 Trial Court whenever their presence is specifically required during the course of trial.

7. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed' SD/. U. SUDHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' SECTI N OFFICER l lI To, \ry Ranga Reddy District at Amangal.

1. The Junior civil Judge-cum-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class, 2. The "Station House Officer, Kadlhal Police Station Cyberabad. 3 One CC to Sri. Rathan Singh M, Advocate [OPUC] +. i*o CCs to Public Prosecritor, High Court ior the State of Telangana [OUT] 5 Two CD Copies YtR /Sn HIGH COURT DATED:1711012025 / I I ORDER CRLP.No.13549 ot 2025 :\. .:\ 1 5 l\l0!/ z0t5 l t.:.. $ -4. {: ,-a,* DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION. \l \il aA