The High Court · 2025

1. The state of reranoana, represented by pubric prosecutor, High court at Hyderabad, rhrougE w.p.S:w;;;;;i6itv -""'

2. Nagapuri !@he1der, Son.of Malla_iah, Aged about 63 years, resident of H.No.'l -'1 -823, Sidhartha Nagar, Kazipet] Waringat, Wil;ir.i Dil;i;i' ...Respondents Petition under Section 52g of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar-pe-tition, the nign court m;y ue pleased to quash the c.c.No.1592 of 2o2o on the file of principat .lunior bivil Judge-cum-Judiciar Magistrate of First crass, Hanumkonda, in ,."p""i.i nz 43, in the interest of justice. "no l.A NO:2 oF 2025 Petition under section 52g of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar-pe-tition, the nigh c"rrt ;ly u" pleased to stay all further proceedings in c.c.No.1592 ol zo{o on the tite ot Principal Junior civir Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First crass, Hanumat<onoa including personar appearance of the petitioners/A2 and 43, pending oi"p"""r or the above Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the argunrents of sri p Ravi Shanker, Advocate for the petitioners and sri Jithe.der Rao veeramalra, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of Respondent No.1 and of none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the foltowing: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.1 3567 ot2025 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.1592 of 2O2O on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Hanumakonda. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Section 498-4 of the lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short D.P. Act),

2. Heard Sri P.Ravi Shanker, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State. Perused the record.

3. Respondent No.2-de facfo complainant, is the father of the victim/LW-6 namely Nagapuri @ Bommaraju Swetha, who is the wife of accused No.1. ln brief, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage of accused No.1 was performed with victim on

04.12.2016. At the time of marriage, certain amount of dowry was given on the demand of accused No.1 and his parents i.e., the petitioners herein. After marriage, the couple resided at the house of de facto complainant for a week, during which accused No.l 2 \--: allegedly quarreled with the victim, expressing dissatisfaction over the dowry and demanded additional amounts. Ihe de facto complainant pacified the matter and sent the victim to her matrimonial home, where they lived amicably lbr about two rnonths. Subsequently, the victim moved to Australizr tbr her higher studies and accused No.1 went to pune for his job. The de facto comprainant has given amounts to accused No.1 for his visa. Later, accused No.1 joined the victim in Austraria, where he allegedly subjecled her to physical and verbal abuse, accusing her of infidelity, and also demanded additional dowry. Upon being informed by the victim, lhe de facto complainant approached the petitioners. lnstead of admonishing accused No.1, lhe petitioners allegedly supported the demands of accused No.1 arrj abused the de facto complainant. While so, the victim was blesserJ with a son. After the birth of their son, on the fifth day of delivery, accused No.1, who was instigated by the petitioners herein, abused and assaulted the victim, reiterating his dowry demands, and thereafter left her and the child in Australia and returnec to lndia. A panchayat was held in the presence of elders, during which the petitioners and others allegedly abused the de fact<t complainant and others in filthy language. When requested to sign on the documents for the child's visa, accused No.1 refu:;ed to do so, unless the demand of additional dowry was fulfilled. {}ubsequenfly, r -7/ - 3 accused No.1 and the petitioners sent a divorce notice to the victim, stating that it would be withdrawn only upon receipt of additional dowry. As the victim remained in Australia, her father, lhe de facto complainant, has lodged the present ccmplaint against the petitioners herein and others, for the said acts of cruelty.. harassment, and illegal dowry demands.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that from the very beginning of the marriage, the victim acted indifferently towards the petitioners and she resided only for a few days at the matrimonial home before leaving to Australia to pursue her higher studies. At her request, accused No.1 left his job in lndia and went to Australia at his own expenses. During their stay, accused No.1 was mistreated by the victim, humiliating him before his friends, denying his entry into the house, escalating minor disputes into serious conflicts and also physically assaulted him. When the victim became pregnant, her parents joined her and altogether subjected accused No.1 to ill{reatment and physical assault, resulting in bleeding injuries. Feeling distressed, accused No.1 thought of ending his life in Australia, but upon the advice of his parents i.e., petitioners and weil-wishers, he returned to rndia on 10.02.2019. Aifter coming down to lndia, accused No.1 filed F.C.O.P.No.220 of 2O1g seeking divorce from the victim. 4 __,_ Subsequently, after about one year, the present complaint was lodged by the de faclo complainant against accused No.1 , the petitioners herein and others. He further subrnitted that the proceedings against accused No.'l were already cuashed by this Court vide order in Crl.P.No.15BC5 of 2024 on 12.C9.2025. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitterd that there are specific allegations against the petitioners and the truth or othenrrise of the allegations levelled against thenr can only be known after conducting full-fledged trial before the trial Court Hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition

6. The only incident alleged to have occurred in lndia, as per the complaint, is that after the marriage, accused lrlo.1 and victim resided at the house of the de facfo complainant fr>r about a week, during which period, accused No.1 is alleged to have engaged in a quarrel with the victim, expressing dissatisfactior with the dowry provided and demanded additional amounts. lt is ;admitted in the complaint itself that after the said incident, the de facto complainant has pacified the issue, and the viclirr subsequently joined accused No.1 at her matrimonial horrr:, where they amicably lived together for about Wvo montl'rs. Instead of admonishing accused No.1 for his acts, the pet tioners allegedly , /' -..' 7 5 supported the demands of accused No_1 and abused the de facto complainant. Except the aforesaid vague allegation, there is no specific instance or overt act of cruelty, harassment, or unlaMul demand alleged to have been committed by the petitioners.

7. As seen from the complaint, it is evident that the marriage of victim was performed with accused No.1 on .04.12.2016. The victim and accused No.i left to Australia on 26.02.2011 and

03.12.2017 respectively. Accused No..l returned to lndia on

10.02.2019. However, the present complaint was lodged by the de facto complainant against accused No.1 and his family members i.e., the petitioners herein and others on 08.12.2019 i.e., there is a delay in lodging the complaint. lf really there was harassment from the very inception of the marriage, the victim ought to have lodged the complaint much earlier. The de facto complainant has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment or cruelty or demand of dowry meted out by the petitioners herein, except stating that they have supported the acts of accused No. i in harassing the victim physically and mentally demanding additional dowry.

8. Further, the case against accused No.1 to whom specific allegations are attributed was quashed by this Court. Hence, this I I 5 Court deems it appropriate to quash the proceeclings against the petitioners herein

9. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against ihc peiitioners-accused [tlcs.2 and 3 in C.C.No.1 592 ot 2020 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Hzrnumakonda, are hereby quashed As a sequel, pending miscellaneous apF,li:ations, if any, shall stand closed. sD^ AryU_Eq ABDULLAH KHAN, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR.6 //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER To, Hanumkonda 1' The Principar Junior civir Judge-cum-Judiciar Magistrate of First crass, 2. The station House Officer, Warangal City WpS, Wararrgal Urban 3. Two CCs to the public prosecutd HiSh'Coud fo. tn. S;trt" of Telangana at 4. One CC to SRt p RAV| SHANKER, Advocate tOpUCl O5. Hyderabad (OUT) Two CD Copies KA HIGH COURT DATED:1711112025 ORDER CRLP.No.13567 ot 2025 -- l,;, ... C,. 1^:; ,(.,, .,/' !, .l 'i :l':: -" ALLOWING THE CRLP \1