Hyderabad High Court · 2025

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, the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRI.MINAL PETITION No.L6247 of 2o24 ORAL ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by petitioner/ accu sed No.3 to quash the proceedings against her in C.C. No. 1206 of 2024 on the file 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 and thereafter, accused No.1, along with other accused, used to harass the victim mentall-v and physically, and also used to threaten her with dire consequences for want of additional dowry. As such, A CASE w,as registered uide Crime No.722 of 2023 before the \A/PS West Zone Police, Hyderabad nnd after completion of investigation, a charge sheet was f-rled uide C.C. No.4206 of 2024 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, for the offences punishabie under Sections 498-,4., 5O6 of the Indian Penal Code, I 86O (for short, the IPC') and Sections 3, 4 ot the Dowry Prohibition Act, 196 1 (for short, 'the ActJ. I I I I 2 !---- SKS,J Ctl.P- No 16247 of2o24

3. Heard Sri Mohd Fasiuddin, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant public Prosecutor for respondent No.l-State. Despite serrice of notice, none appeared on behalf of respondent No.2. 4 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and she is no way concerned with the alleged offences. He further submitted that the petitioner is relative of accused No.1 and she never resided with accused No.l and respondent No.2. He also submitted that except omnibus allegations, there are no specific allegations against the petitioner. Therefore, he prayed the Court to a_llow the Criminal Petition by quashing the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 _ State opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that as per the averments of the complaint, accused No. 1, a-long with other accused, including the petitioner, used to harass respondent No.2. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition. l .sr(s.J Crt.P. No- t6247 ol 2024

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 the petitioner is distant relative of accused No. 1. As per the averments of the complaint, accused No.l, along with other accused, used to harass respondent No.2 mentally and physically. It is pertinent to note that except the above allegation, there are no specific allegations against the petitioner and it is a,lso seen that the petitioner is no way concerned with the matrimonial disputes prevalent between accused No.l and respondent No.2. Admittedly, the only allegation against the petitioner is that she supported accused No.1.

7. At this stage, it is relevalt to note the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others as. BhaJanlatl, whereunder, the following categories were illustratsd, wherein the extraordinary 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 h992 supp (1) scc 33s 4 SKSJ Cd.P- No. t62a7 of2024 otherwise to secure the ends of justice, The said categories -: are extracted as under: " I . Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the comptaint, even if they are taken at their face value alrd accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute arry offence or make out a case against the accused.

2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materia.ls, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cogrrizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 [1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate wit1.in the purview of Section 155 (2) ofthe Code.

3. Where tJle uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

4. Where, the allegations in tlre FIR do not constitute a cogrizable offence but constitute only a non-cogrrizablg effence, no investigation is .sK5,J C,l P. No 16247 ol2o24 permitted by a police oflicer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code.

5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion t'hat there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specifrc provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing effrcacious redress for the grievalce of the aggrieved party.

7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala hde and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge-" \ a.l l' \t t.),1r sl'\,' tjt ,,):j l - 8. That being so, it is noted that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are vague and baseiess. Therefore, it can be said that category No. 1 as extracted above in the case of Bhajanlal(Supra) is relevant to the present case. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that even if the trial is conducted, no purpose would be served as there are no other specific allegations against the petitioner.

9. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed and the proceeding against the petitioner/accused No.3 in C.C. No.4206 of 2024 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. K. AMMAJI DEPUTY REGISTRAR / ,l SECTION OFFICER I Xlll Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Nampally at Hyderabad, Station House Officer, Police Station, WPS West Zone, Hyderabad. CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court at Hyderabad. (OUT) CC to SRI MD FASIUDD|N Advocate IOPUCI CD Cooies'O*- Il To,

1. The 2. The 3. Two 4. One 5. Two PSI. HIGH COURT DATED: 27tO3t2O2S 4 c o o t S6rt rA 'IrJ( 2|i iuil M t o F rn4;51 rEo * ( O .5 ORDER CRLP.N o.16247 of 2024 I CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED R A- ( s\