The High Court · 2025

Smt. Thumanapally Manisha, Wio. Munag years, Occ. 'Pvt. Empbybe, R/o. H Ramanthapur, Hyderabad. ala Dhanendra No.3-7-72111A, Kumar Age 27 lndira Nagar, ...Petitioner/A-1 ...Respondents Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S_ 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 Petitioner/Accused No.1 in C.C.No.1963 of 2025 on the file of the Court of the Vt Addl. Metropotitan Magistrate Medchal Malkajgiri District at Uppal at L.B.Nagar. l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. 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 including arrest of the Petitioner/ Accused No. 1 in C.C.No.'1963 of 2025 on the file of the Court of the Vl Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Uppal at L-B.Nagar, pending disposal of above Quash petition and pass such other or further Order or Orders as the Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case in the interest of Justice. '.i.. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing tf ( Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing tt ( arguments of Sri K R K Gargeya, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sr V.Jithender Rao, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respohderr No.'l and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.l5537 of 2025 ORDER:- 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.1 in C.C.No.1963 of 2025, on the file of the Iearned Vl Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Uppal at L.B.Nagar, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 85 and 351(2) of BNS and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. Heard Ms.A.Madhavi Latha, leamed counsel representing Sri K.R.K.Gargeya, learned counsel on record for the petitioner/accused No.'l as well as Sri Jitender Rao Veeramalla, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.'t- State.

3. Learned petitioner's counsel submitted that the petitionei has never harassed the defacto comPlainant and that it was a love marriage between them. He further submitted that the defacto complainant has raised all false allegations against the petitioner and that there are no specific incidents of harassment alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner being the husband of the defacto 2 ETDJ C .P.No.755i7 2025 complainant has requested her to come and stay wi h him, but she refused and she is residing with her parents and has filed this false complaint against the petitioner. He therefore pray,: I to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 4- The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has; submitted that there are specific incidents of harassment nanated ,r the complaint and also in the Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement r ,f the defacto complainant. The petitioner is alleged to have lemanded for additional dowry and asked the parents of the defacto :omplainant to sell away the land and purchase a house for him, pur ,uant to which, when the parents did not heed to his request, he kept, house and used to create nuisance at their hor counseling session was conducted on their complair even then, the petitioner could not mend his attitu< n visiting their se. Once a I to police but e. Thus, the present complaint is lodged. He therefore prayed o dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record. The contents of the corr :laint and the statement of the defacto complainant reveals sper;i r-c allegations against the petitioner that he made demand for additi,: ral dowry and that he used to harass the defacto complainant everr while residing at her parent's house. He went there and used to ki: < the doors of _/ 3 ETO) C .P.No.755i7_2025 the house and used to abuse them in filthy language.and he also used to call relatives of the defacto complainant and speak to them in objectionable manner and further, even after the counseling session on 27.05.2025 at the Police Station, the petitioner could not mend his attitude. lt is further revealed that on 03.07.2025, he went to the house of the parents of the defacto complainant and was creating galata over there, pursuant to which, he himself has dialed 100 and left the place on arrival of Police. AII these allegations prima facie point out the offence under Section 498-A as against the petitioner herein. Hence, the truth or otherwise in the allegations can be culled out after a full-fledged trial. Considering the submissions made by both parties and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the Criminal Petition by dispensing with the appearance of the petitioner before the Trial Court.

6. Hence, the Criminal Petition is disposed of dispensing with the presence of the petitloner/accused No.1 before the Trial Court provided that the petitioner is represented through an Advocate on every date of hearing and that he shall be present before the Trial Court whenever his presence is specifically required during the course of trial. 4 ETD) c .P.No-15537_208

7. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall slz nd closed. SD/- AHMI: ) ABDULLA KHAN ISTRAR ASSlli //TRUE COPY// FFICER To,

1. The Vl Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Mat< rjgiri District, Uppal at L.B.Nagar.

2. The Station House Officer, Women PS, Uppal (Rachakonc a) police Station, Rachakonda.

3. One CC to Sri. K R K Gargeya Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State o., 5. Two CD Copies. -elangana. [OUT] YJR/PSL \+ HIGH COURT DATED:2611112025 ORDER CRLP.No.15537 ot 2025 :;l i SI,q c o, ? 3 Jtlt 2026 t "ir::: (:- | (-) c 'tr DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITIOII. d.,d"N s,,