The High Court · 2025

2. Smt. Jeedimalla Bhavani alias thavana, D/o. J. Narsaiah Aged 34 years' Occ. Housewife, Presently Residing at Flat No.5Ol, sth [oor, Pandffianga Landmark Bandari layout, Nizamp6t, Medchal-Malkajgiri District - p-0-0090 Permanent R/o. H. No. 9-235, Kummari Bazar, Nadim Tiruvuru Mllage, Tirvuru Mandal, Krishna District -521235. ...Respondent No.2/ De-facto Complainant Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstanc€s stated in the Memorandum of GrouMs of Criminal Petition, the Hklh Court may be pleased to Quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 212712025 on the file of the Court of the XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad. l.A. l{O: 1OF 2025 Petition under Sectbn 528 of B.N.S.S. 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 appearance of the Petitioner in C.C. No.2'12712O25 on the file of the Court of the XIV A,tl<litional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K Lakshman, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veerama a, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONBLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.14092 of 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitbner-accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.2127 of 2025 on the file of XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magiskab at Nampa{ly' for the offences under Sections 354(c) and 506 lPC.

2. Heard Mr. Kolipaka Lakshman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned cpunsel for the petitioner has submitted that the de facto complainant is in the habit of filing cases against the petitioner herein and has been harassing him and ruining his life. He further submitted that earlier the de facto complainant has lodged a complaint against the petitioner alleging the offences under Sections 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and in the present FlR, she alleged that the petitioner has commifted the offences under Sections 354(c) and 506 lPC. The de facto complainant has alleged the petitioner to be a bisexual, which is utterly false and that there arc no ingredients to attract the offence \\ 2 ETD,J Cd?. No.laog2 d m2:t under section 3s4 (c) rpc and therefore, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional public prosecutor has submitted that the statement of LW.1-de facto complainant points out serious allegations against the, petitioner that he is a bisexual,and used to force the de facto complainant to commit unnatural sex and also used to take certain obiectionable videos and post them on various websites, He has also pointed out that the de factocomptainant has filed a complaint under sections 4gg-A and s06 lpc against her first husband in the year 2014 and that the said case is entirely different from the present one. He, therefore, submifted that since serious allegations are pointed out against the petitioner, the proceedings cannot be quashed against him;

5. Perused the record.

6. rt is borne out by record that in 2023, the de facto cornptainant has filed FIR No.34 of zo23 upder section 49g-A lpc and sections 3 and 4 of the DF Act against the petitioner herein. The present case is fired for the offences under sections 3s4(c) and 506 lPc. The aflegations made in the present compraint are that the petitioner herein is a bisexuar and prays an active rore on dating r' 3 .. . €fD,J cd.P. t{o.tto1z dMt Apps inespective of the gender, he kept multiple affairs and forced her to harre unnatural sex and further has posted some objectionable videos on social media. Thus, the allegations point out offences of ... heinous nature against the petitioner. The learned counse! for ttre petitioner has submitted that the de facto complainant is in the habit of filing cases and that the first maniage of the de factocomplainant also ended up in divorce and that she raised false allegations against her first husband also. The said complaint was registered for: , ... the offences under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC vide EIR No.124 of , t

7. Admittedly, this is the second marriage for both the parties and their wedlock has happened through Shaadi.com. Filing a case by the de facto complainant against her first husband, cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings in the present FIR against the petitioner herein. Since specific allegations are there on record pointing out the pima facie case against the petitioner, it is not .: proper to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. Thus, in the facts and circumstances, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the petition by dispensing with the attendanc€ of the petitioner before th_e-___.., i \ 4 ETO.J Ct .P. No.ltUEZ ol 2f.25 g. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is disposed of dispensing with the aftendance. of the patitioner before theltrial court, provided he is represented by a counsel before the trial,court on every date of hearing and he shall appear before the triat court as and when his presence is required. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand elosed. /TTRUE COPYI' ..-.^ SD'{U.NAGAilANI AssrsrArr REGtsii{AFi SECTION OFFTCER \ To" 1' The Xlv Additionar chief Metroporitan Magistrate, at Nampatty, Hyderabad. 2. The Station.House Officer,Madhura Nagar polie Station; Hyderabad 3. One CC to Sri. K l_akshman Advocate IOPUCJ 4' Two ccs to pubric prosecutor, 5. Two CD Copies, High court for the state of rerangana. tot rl 4kn*'oo HIGH COURT DATED:1811112025 ORDER CRLP.No.14O92 ot 202i 1 HES TA ti g JAN 202f r+ * DISPOSING OF THE CRIMTNAL PETITION. I v/