The High Court · 2025

Petition 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 call for the records pertaining to FIR No.132 of 2025 on the file of P.S. Pocharam lT Corridor, Rachakonda, Medchal Malkajgiri District and quash the same. LA. NO: 2OF 2025 Petition 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 stay all further proceedings in FIR No.'1 32 of 2025 on the file of P.S. Pocharam lT Corridor, Rachakonda, Medchal-Malkajgiri District including the arrest of the Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 and 2, pend rg disposal of the Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing upon perusing tr: Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argume,r s of Sri Y.ASHOK RAJ, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri Jithende Rao Ver ramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1, and nor e appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITIO N No.14618 OF 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in Crime No l32 of 2025 of Pocharam lT Corridor, Rachakonda, registered for the offences under Sections 75, 76, .l 15(2) and 351(2) read with 3(5) of BNS. 2 Heard Sri Y. Ashok Raj, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 -State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the present complaint is filed with a delay of eight months from the date of alleged incident and that the said delay itself discloses the falsity in the complaint. He further submitted that petitioner No 2 herein lodged a complaint against respondent No.2-de facto complainant and her family members and subsequently, the present complaint is filed as a counter blast to the said case. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings in the present crime against the petitioners herein. /- \. ETD,J ( r P.No.l46l8 of2025 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor subnr led that the 2 allegations are serious in nature and hence, the pt-' itioners have to face trial. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

5. Perused the record

6. The contents of the complaint point out that t re petitioners herein are the brother-in-law and father-in-law of t le brother of respondent No.2-de facto complainant. lt is all,:;ed that the petitioners tried to outrage the modesty of tl e de facto complainant, while the marriage talks were going r n during the visit to the bride's house and subsequently also, p::itioner No.1- accused No.1 tried to outrage her modesty. lt is lt rther alleged that after petitioner No.1 left to USA, at one instalr;e, petitioner No.2 also tried to touch her private parts on the pret, rxt of holding her infant daughter Thus, the allegations pima te oie point out the offences alleged against the petitioners herein.

7. The contention of the petitioners' counsel is that the present complaint is filed as a counter blast to the )ase filed by peti[oner No.2. Petitioner No.2-accused No.2, who is the father of accused No.1, has filed a complaint based on uhich Crime 3 ETD.] Crl,P.No 14618 of2025 No.44 of 2025 of WPS East Zone (Hyderabad) Police Station, Hyderabad, is registered on 06.03.2025 under Sections 85, 316(2) and 351(2) of BNS and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, against lhe de facto complainant and her family members. Now, the present crime is registered under Sections 75,76, 115(2) and 351(2) read with 3(5) of BNS based on the complaint filed by the de facto complainant on 17.03.2025. Thus, there is a case and a counter €se foisted against the petitioners and the de facto complainant. The allegations levelled in the present case are serious in nature. The investigation is still in progress and truth is yet to be unravelled. However, since the offences alleged are punishable with imprisonment less than or up to seven years, it is deemed appropriate to direct petitioner No.2 to appear before the police concerned and receive the notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of directing petitioner No.2 to appear before the lnvestigating Officer concerned on or before 16.12.2025 between 11:00 AM and 5:00 PM, and in turn, the lnvestigating Officer is directed to follow the procedure laid down under Section 35(3) of BNSS and the guidelines formulated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh \ \ \t- ( l'.No.14618 of2025 Kumar v. State of Biharl scrupulously and ( omplete the 4 ETD,J investigation strictly in accordance with law. The p :titioner No.2 is also directed to co-operate with the lnvestigating )fficer and to furnish the requisite information and documents i s and when required by the lnvestigating Officer. Since petition -.r No.1 is in abroad, notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS canno- te served on him effectively as on date. Hence, petitioner No.1 i; at liberty to seek appropriate remedies according to law on his re :urn to lndia. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall s and closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. tII OSMAN ALI BAIG AFSrs rANT REGTSTRAR \_\\ ! ECTION OFFICER .I To,

1. The V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate-Cum-l stAddition; Judge, Malakjgiri-Medchal District Uppatat L.B.Nagar. I Junior Civil

2. The Station House Officer, Pocharam lT Corridor Police St rtion, Rachakonda. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the Stat-. of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to SRI Y.ASHOK RAJ Advocate IOPUCI 5. Two CD Copies NVB/Sa ' lzolay a scc zzl .HIGH COURT DATED:2511112025 I t t IHE: fu]r-t (,i'') 30 , . ri i! -'\ ,. ,*y)t;/ PA'I( ORDER CRLP.No.14618 of 2025 DISPOSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION E ( \