Hyderabad High Court · 2025

Petition under Seclion 528 of BNSS, 2023 praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in CC No. 420612024 U/s 498-4,506 lPC,3 4 DPA lN (On The File Of The Xlll Addl. Chief l/etropolitan lrilagistrate Nampally at Hyderabad,; l.A. NO: 2OF 2024 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2O23 praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to grant Stay of all further proceedings against the petitioners in CC No 420612024 U/s 498-4,506 lPC,3,4 DPA lN (On The File Of The Xlll Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Nampally at Hyderabad,; This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri MD FASIUDDIN, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri E.Ganesh, Asst. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and none appear for the Respondent No.2; The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.l 6246 of2024 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.6 to quash the proceedings against him in C.C. No. 4206 of 2024 on the frle of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad.

2. The brief facts of the case are that accused No.1 and the victim got married in the year 2023. Thereafter, accused No.1, along with other accused, used to harass the victim mentally and physically and also used to threaten her with dire consequences for want of additional dowry. Hence, a case was registered uide Crime No.122 of 2023 before the WPS West Zone Police, Hyderabad and after completion of investigation, a charge sheet was lied uide C.C. No.4206 of 2024 on the file of XIII Additiona-l Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampa_lly, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 of the Indian Pena-I Code, 1860 (for short, the IPC') and Sections 3,4 of the Dowr5r Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, the Act).

3. Heard Sri Mohd Fasiuddin, learned counsel for the petitioner ard Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant public prosecutor i l ! I J I 2 for respondent No.1-State. Despite service of notice, none Crl-P. No. 16246 oJ 2024 appeared on beha-lf of respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he is no way concerned with the alleged offences. He further submitted that the petitioner is distant relative of accused No.1 and he never resided \dth accused No.1 and respondent No.2. He also submitted that except omnibus allegations, there are no specific allegations against the petitioner. Hence, he prayed the Court to allow the Crimina,l Petition by quashing the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. On the other harrd, learned Assistant public prosecutor for respondent No.l-State opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that as per the averments of the complaint, accused No.1, along with other accused, used to harass respondent No.2. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

6. In view of the rival submissions made by both the parties, this Court has perused the material available on record. It is apparent that ttre petitioner is distant relative of accused No. 1 . As per the averments of the complaint, accused No. 1 , ,, l I I 3 5I(S,J Ci.P. No- 16246 of2024 along with other accused, used to harass respondent No'2 mentally and physically. It is pertinent to note that except the above allegation, there a-re no specific allegations against the petitioner and the petitioner is no way concerned with the matrimonial disputes between accused No'1 and respondent No.2. Admittedly, the only allegation against the petitioner/ accused No.6 is that he supported accused No' 1' At this stage, it is relevalt to note the observations made 7 . by the Apex Court in State oJ Haryana and others os' Bhajanlalr, whereunder the following categories were illustrated, wherein the extraordinar5r power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the High Court to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The said categories are extracted as under: "1. Where the allegations made in the First Infonnation Report or the complaint, euen if theA are taken at their face iitu. ond accepied in their entirety do not pima facie constitute ong o1i"n . or make out a ca'se against the acotsed'

2. Were the allegations in the First Infonnation Report and- other mateiols, if ang, accompanging the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifuing an inuestigation bg oolice officers-und.er Secilon 156 (1) of the Code except under an -ori", ii a Magistrate within tLLe puruiertt of Section 155 (2) of the Code. 11992 supp (1) scc 335

3. Where the uncontrcuerted allegatiorus mqde in tlrc FIR or complaint ond the euide'ftce collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of ang offence and moke out a case agairust the accused. Cd.P. No. 16246 ol2o24

4. Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cogni-z.able offence but con-stitute onlg a non-cognizable offence, no inuestigation is pennitted bg a police officer without an order of a Magbtrate o.s contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code.

5. Where the allegotions made in the FIR or compldint are so absurd and intrcrentlg tmprobable on the basi,s of ruhich no pntdent person can euer reach a just conclusion that there i-s sufficient ground for proceeding against th.e accused. 6. Where there is qn express legal bar engrafied in ang of tLrc prouisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under uhbh a ciminal proceed.ing i-s instituted) to the tnstitution and continuance of the proceedings and/ or where tLLere is a specific proui^sion in the Code or the concerned Act, prouiding effi.cacious redress for the gieuonce of the aggrieued partg. 7. Where a criminal proceeding i-s manifestly attended uith mala fide and/ or uhere the proceeding ts maliciouslg instituted uith an ulteior motiue for u.treaking uengeance on the accused and u.tith a uieu to spite him due to piuate and personal grudge."

8. Further, in Preeti Gupta os. State of Jharkhan&, 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 petitioner is not residing along with the family of accused No.1, the allegations against him are vague. Therefore, it can be said that category No.l as extracted above in the case of Bhajanlal(Supra) is relevant to the present case. Therefore, '1zoro; z scc ooz I I : : I 5 SKS,J Crl-P. No. 16246 of2024 this Court is of the considered view that even if the trial is conducted, no purpose would be served as there are no other speci{ic allegations against the petitioner' g. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceeding against the petitioner/ accused No'6 in C'C' No'4206 of 2024 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad' are hereby quashed' Miscellaneousapplications,ifanypending,shallalsostand closed, //TRUE COPY// SD/. A .SREENIVASA REDDY S TANT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER / To,

1. The Xlll Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad 2. The Station House Officer, WPS West Zone P.S , Hyderabad 3. One CC to SRl. MD FASIUDDIN Advocate IOPUCI +. two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR' High Court at Hyderabad (OUT) 5. Two CD Copies VSM/gh I i I I I HIGH COURT DATED:2010312025 Ir{C SI,t ( o o 2lJUll 6 $( * o€sp * /,TC Het) ORDER CRLP.No.16246 of 2024 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION 4 /.,4 / I I I