The High Court · 2025

Hon'ble Vl Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad, dated 22lOBl2O25 and conseqL'ently direct the trial court to take cognizance against the respond ents/Accused Nos. 1 -8. l.A. NO: zOF 2025 Pr:tition under Section 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order passed in S.R.No. 4386 ol 2024 in Cr.No. 32 of 2O23 of P.S. Tappachabutra on the file of Hon'ble Vl Addl. Chief Judicial Magistra te, Hyderabad daled 221 OBI 2025 This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri MUKKERA SAHITHI SRI KAVYA, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor for the Stat() of Telangana on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and 2 and none appeared for Respondent no.3 to 10. The Coult made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIM!NAL PETITI ON No.14143 OF 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-complainant seeking to set aside the order, daled 22.08.2025, passed in S.R.No.4386 of 2024 in Crime No.32 of 2023 ol Tappachabutra Police Station, by the learned Vl Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad.

2. Heard Ms. Sahithi Sri Kavya Mukkera, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein has filed a private complaint against respondent Nos.3 to 10, pursuant to which the police have ftled a final report referring the case as 'lack of evidence'. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present protest petition vlde S.R.No.4386 of 2024, but the same was dismissed by the trial Court vlde impugned order, dated 22.08.2025.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the trial Court has discussed the contradictions in the stiatements of \ 2 DTD.I Crl-P.No.14143 of2025 complainant. lt has evaluated the sworn statement of the complainant with that of his complaint and dismissed the protest petition, which is not just and proper. The trial Court is not suppos€rd to evaluale the evidence at this stage and it is only the pima facie material that has to be considered. She, therefore, prayed lo set aside the order, daled 22.A8.2025, and direct the trial Court to take cognizance of the offences alleged against the accused

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the protest petition, as the Court was not satisfied with the prima facie material placed on record. He further submitted that the petitioner could not produce any material before the Court to hold that prima facie case exists against the accused. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

6. Perused the record.

7. The case of the petitioner is that he is an accused in a case filed unde'Sections 4984, 3048 and 420 read with 34 l.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and he was remanded to judicial custody. After coming out on bail, he went to r/ / ETUJ Crl.P.No.l4l43 of2025 the house of the accused as his material was lying with them and 3 the accused have beaten him. With the said set of allegations, he filed a private complaint before the Court at Nampally and it was referred for investigation. On investigation,.the police have filed final report referring the case as ,lack of evidence,. pursuant to the same, the petitioner has filed the present protest petition.

8. lt is seen that the petitioner failed to produce any independent witnesses before the Court, but for himself no other sworn statement was recorded and he has not submitted any documentary evidence or at least he has not submitted any list of witnesses to be examined. The contention of the petitioner,s counsel is that the petitioner has mentioned the names of two eye witnesses in his complaint and that the Court failed to take note of the same. A bare perusal of the complaint which was lodged before the court revears that the comprainant raised afiegations against the police for not registering his complaint and that he has also alleged that he has taken independent witnesses to the police station, but the police in spite of producing the said witnesses could not register his case. But, the petitioner has nowhere stated that he is going to examine the said witnesses nor he has brought the said witnesses along with him to the Court \ 4 ETD,J Crl.P.No.l4l43 0f2025 to record their sworn statements. Unless the Court records its prima facie satisfaction, it cannot take cognizance of any offence.

9. Further, it is borne out by record that the police on thorough investigertion has filed final report referring the case as 'lack of evidencri. That being the case, the petitioner could have been all the more careful while filing the protest petition by mentioning the witnesses, which he has not done. ln his sworn statement also, the petir:ioner has not stated any thing utith regard to the witnesses he is going to examine nor the evidence available with , him. Further, the petitioner's counsel has contended that the trial Court was not supposed to evaluate the statement of complainant at this juncture. lt is seen from the order of the trial Court that LW.1 has; contradicted his own statement i.e., in the complaint, he has stated that accused No.1 telephoned him and asked him to come do'lrrn to his house, while in his sworn statement, he has stated that he himself telephoned accused No.1. The trial Court ought not to have evaluated the statements in this matter. However, even if this contradiction or the observation of the Court with regard to the contradictory statement is kept aside, without even evaluating the statements, it is to be seen that the petitioner failed to produce any other material or documents before the trial 5 DTD,J Crl P No.l4l43 of 2025 Court and he has also failed to produce any other witnesses or list of witnesses to be examined. Therefore, in the absence of the said relevant material or retevant witnesses on record, the tria! Court could not record its satisfaction with regard to the pima facie case against the accused. Hence, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the triat Court and the same is upheld. The Criminal Petition lacks merit.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/C.DEEPIKA STANT REGISTRAR ON OFFICER To

1. The Vl Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Tappachabutra Police Station, Hyderabad Commissionerate, Hyderabad.

3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High court for the state of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to SRl. MUKKERA SAHITHI SRI KAVYA Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies EPR/PSL /,I<,wy HIGH COURT DATED:20111/,2025 ORDER CRLP.No.14143 of 2025 ii;rl (J 2 3 JAl,l 20?6 " * D, i t', DISMISSING THE CRL.PETITION Gfi --t\