The High Court · 2025

5. Arikilla Sharada, Wo Srinivas Aged 40 years Occ GoVt Employe.eR/o.H-No A:-i-lZg, Contractor basthi, Beli-ampalli,' Mancheral Mandal and District. - 504251. (Sister-in-law of Respondent No.2) 6. lppa Padma, Wo lppa Srinivas Age! 50 years Occ Housewife R/o Kannepalli firi&., iiwini trrtirioit, Aditabad" Distriit - 504297. (sister of Husband of Respond'O2 ...pETrroNER/AccusED No. 1 To G

1. The State of Telangana through, lt'*r.Oipet, Nizamabad District, Rep'by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT 2 KandukuriNavatha,WoPraveenAge30yearsocc-HouseholdR/oAnnaram virraseNandipetMandar:::T:l:#:I'r',lLro"rocoMpLA,NANr 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. 525 of 2025 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Armoor and pass such oth.er order or orders as this Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. I i I I I I ! i i , I ! t. I I i I I.A. NO: 2 OF 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 grant stay of all further proceedings including the appearance of the petitioners in C.C. No. 525 of 2025 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Armoor and pass such other order or orders as this Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.Baddam Aravind Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad on behalf of the Respondent No.1. The Court made the following: ORDER: I I I I i I i i i I I I I i ! ! i i : I i i ! i I I : i THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.15520 of 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Seotion 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') to quash the proceedings in c.c.No.525 of 2025 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Armoor, for the offences under Section 498-A of lndian Penal Code, 1860 (for short'lPC') and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short'DP Act').

2. Heard tMr.B.Aravind Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners herein are the husband, brothers-in-law, and sisters- in-law of the de facto complainant, and that she had lived in the .matrimonial home for only a period of 15 days. lt is alleged that she has made false allegations against the petitioners and that they never harassed the de facto complainant for want of additional dowry. He further submits that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are omnibus in nature, without any specific dates or. incidents of harassment, and thus are not sustainable in \ \ 2 ETD, J Crl.P 15520 2025 t'-^- the eye of law. He further submitted that petitioner No.1, who is the husband of the de facto complainant, has filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, in which the de facto complainant was set ex parte and a decree was passed in favour of petitioner No.1 herein. lt is submitted that the de facto complainant is not interested in leading a family life with petitioner No.1 and has therefore filed false allegations against the petitioners. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the statement of LW1 discloses that petitioner No.1 had expressed his impotency and had further harassed her for want of additional dowry, and that the other petitioners herein had supported him and subjected her to harassment. He further submitted that the panchayat elders have been examined by the prosecution and they have supported the case of the de facto complainant. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition

5. Perused the record.

6. The statement of LW1 and the recitals of the charge sheet point out specific allegations of impotency against petitioner No.1, / 3 ETD, J Crl.P 15520 2025 as well as incidents of harassment allegedly committed by the petitioners herein. LWs.4 to 6 are village elders who have spoken in support of the statement of LW1.

7. Therefore, the veracity of the statement of the witnesses and also the truth or otherwise of the allegations needs to be tested during the course of trial. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to dispense with the presence of the petitioners before the trial Court. B. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is disposed of dispensing with the presence of the petitioners before the trial court provided that they are represented by a counsel before the trial court on every date of hearing and shall appear before the trial court whenever their presence is required during the course of trial. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. tl <tuft. cD(T q T . SRINIVASA REDDY ISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, \fi.

1. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Armoor, Nizamabad District . 2. The Station House Officer, Nandipet Potice Station, Nizamabad District 3. One CC to Sri. Baddam Aravind Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad tOUTl. 5. Two CD Copies. ! I a HIGH COURT DATED:2611112025 {HE S 14 O B JAN 2026 .2. C) t * ORDER CRLP.No.15520 of 2025 DISPOSED OF THE CRIMINAL P ETITION Lu