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 quash the proceedings in c.c. No. 8375 oI 2o2i on the file of ll Additional Junior civil Judge cum Xlll Additionat Judicial Magistrate of First class Medchal- Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally against the petitioner/Accused No.2. t.A. NO: 10F 2024 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 be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including "pp""rin"" of the Petitioner/Arcused No. 2 in c.c.No.8375 of 2022 on the file of the ll Additional Junior civil Judge cum Xlll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at Kukatpally, pending disposal of main criminal petition in the interest of justice, This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing ,re Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the argume r ts of Sri J pradeep Kiran, Advocate for the Petitioner and sri M Vivekananda Rer dy, Assistant public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and Ms. E R.j l Ramani, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA cRIMINAL PETITION No.I5748 of 2024 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'the BNSS) seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/ accused No.2 in C.C.No.8375 of 2022 on the file of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XIII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally, registered for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPCJ and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, 'DP ActJ

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2l de- facto complarnant lodged a complarnt before the Police stating that her marriage with accused No.1 was solemnized in the presence of elders. At the time of marriage, her father had given a house at Habsiguda, Rs. 15,O0,0O0/- in cash, Rs.3,00,0O0/- each to her two sisters-in-law, 55 tulas of go1d, ald Rs.25,O0,OO0/- towards engagement and marriage expenses. \ -'--- 2 sHs,J Crt. '.No.15748 of2024 Thereafter, they blessed with a baby boy' Afte' her husband began harassing her both r physically, as he did not like her and the petitiorr his sisters, also harassed and tortured her additional dowry. Six months ago, her husbz rvith her and went to his sister's house' She wait three months; when he did not return' she went -r in law's house. There, her mother-in-law continl her to leave the house' ot 24'ol '2022 ' tL,e r panchayat in the presence of the Sarpanch and [r her of various wrongdoings in order to evict l house. On 25.01.2022, lrrer elder sister-in-1aw's I force and influences to neck her out fror Furthermore, her younger sister-in-law and : pressured her to transfer some acres of land in I the marriage, Lentally and :r, along with demanding rd quarreled :d for him for her mother- ed to torture convened a sely accused er from the rsband used the house. :r husband rvor of their daughter.

3. Basing on the said complaint, the Police reg r lered a case in Crime No. 112 of 2022 for the offence punir; Lable under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP I ct and after completion of investigation, they filed the charg: sheet, uide C.C.No.8375 of 2022, before the learned II Addi-: rnal Junior tl*ll,--. , 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.15748 of 2024 ,I Civil Judge cum XIII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present criminal petition to quash the proceeding against her.

4. Heard Sri J. Pradeep Kiran, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No. l-State and Ms. E. Roja Ramani, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in no way connected with the alleged offences. She has never resided with accused No. 1 and the de facto complainant, as she has been residing in Devaruppula Viilage, where she is engaged in agricultural activities and that the de-facto complainant visited the petitioner's residence solely with the intention of falsely implicating her in the present case. In fact, the complainant created a nuisance at the petitioner's house and even attempted to forcibly evict her. Aggrieved by such conduct, the petitioner lodged a complaint with the local police, pursuant to which a case was registere d uide Crime No.7 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 4 SKS,J Crl.P Io.l574A of 2024 427, 2gO read with Section 34 of IPC and furtlr :r submitted that the present petition is nothing but a count€ -blast to the criminal complaint frled by the petitioner agains t Lh-e de-facto complainant. The allegations in the present ca s I are vague, baseless, and motivated by malice, with the sol: intention to harass the petitioner and accused No. 1. Thereft'l:, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the letitioner by allowing this criminal petition.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for tlr respondent No.2 submitted that the police, after due investigz t cln, removed the charges against accused Nos.3, 4, 5, and 6, Lnd filed the charge sheet only against accused Nos.1 and 2. lhe fact that charges were not dropped against the peti -l rner clearly indicates the existence of a primo facie case, whic I a full-fledged trial and that accused No. 1, alc necessitates rg with the petitioner, abandoned respondent No.2 and her c hild and left the matrimonial home. As a result, respond'; rt No.2 was compelled to travel to the village where accur;r d No.l was residing at that time, along with the petitioner. C c ntrary to the petitioner's claims, it was respondent No.2 who was forcibly driven out of the petitioner's house with the assi ,tance of the 5 sKs,J Crl.P.I{o.15748 of 2024 police, Lrnder the pretext of a false complaint and prayed the Court to dismiss the petition. 7 . In view of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is observed that the primary allegations against the petitioner are that she, along with accused No.1 and sisters-in-law of the complainant, allegedly harassed the complainant and sought registration of a portion of her land in the name of [he younger sister-in-law's daughter. However, as per the statements of the witnesses, it is evident that the de-facto complainant and accused No.l resided in Habsiguda, and accused Nos.2 to 4 never lived with them. Accused No.2 only visited occasionally to see her grandson.

8. Further, in Preeti Gupta as. State of Jharkhandr, the Apex Court observed that the family members who are residing away from accused No. 1 cannot be roped into the case. In view thereof, as the petitioners are not residing along with the family of accused No.1, the allegations against them are vague. Furthermore, there is no material on record to show that the ' (2010) 7 scc 667 I 6 SKS,J Ct . -No.15748 oI 2024 de-facto complainant had ever made any z llegations of harassment against accused No.2. One of the v itnesses hled afhdavit, u'herein except for the statement thal rccused No' 1 and the de-facto complainant resided together in the said apartment for a considerable duration, no other ncriminating material was elicited. 9 . However, the marriage between the cor.t rlainant and accused No.l was solemnized in the year 2l 10, and the complaint rvas lodged only in the year 2022. Nota rly, there are no allegations against the petitioner witlL respect to harassment lor additional dowry. The petiti I -rer was not residing with accused No. I and the complair Lr nt, and the incidcnt regarding allegedly being driven out , f the house occurred subsequent to disputes between accl I :d No. 1 and the complainant. Hence, such incident cannol re construed as harassment for additional dowry, as such tl j ; Court is of the opinion that continuation of criminal proce'r lings against the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process I 'law.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allo'red and the proceedings against the petitioner in C'C'No'83" i of 2022 on r.arssffi* #& , t.., 7 sKs,J Crl.P .No .\5748 of 2024 the file of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge cum XIII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal- Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally, are hereby quashed' Miscellaneous appiications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. SD/. B REKHA RANI, ISTANT REGISTRAR. I //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The ll Additional Junior civil Judge cum Xlll Additional Judicial lv'lagistrate of First Class Medchal- Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally

2. The station House Officer' Balanagar Police Station, Cyberabad 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT) +. One CC to Sri J Pradeep Kiran, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Ms. E Roja Ramani Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD CoPies ADK I HIGH COURT DATED:2510712025 ORDER CRLP.No.15748 o12024 Lr ., ,Tfi 'lili.' \ o <\ ..\ ?, ALLOWING THE CRLP a'