Heard Ms v. Mythili

Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

2. Qeerugonda Mamatha, Wo Vijay Kumar Methri, Aged about 28 Years, Occ. Housewife, R/o Ryakal of Narayankhed Mandal. Piesently Rt/o New Adarsh Colony, 3rd phase B idar -58504 1, Ph 7 02257 33A0, 8867 ei22230. 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 Crime No. 261 of 2025 dated 04-1 1-2025 onthe file of PS Narayakhed Sangareddy District as against the petitioners/Accused No. 1 to 7. ...Respondent LA. NO: 1OF 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 lncluding personal appearance of the petitioners/Accused No.1 to 7 herein in Crime No. 261 of 2025 dated 04- 11-2025 on the file of PS Narayakhed Sangareddy District. This Petition coming on for hearing upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Ms V.MyTHlLl Advocate for the Petitioners and the Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1, and none Appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT ITTDERABAI) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENTVAS RAO CRIMINAL No. 16750 of 20.25 DATE: 15.12.2O25 Between : Vrjay Kumar Methri and six others AND ....Petitioners/accused Nos. L to 7 The State of Telangana, Through P.S. Narayankhed, Rep. by Fublic Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad and another ....Respondents :ORDER This criminal petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 7 seeking to quash the proceedings in crime No.26l of 2o2s of Narayankhed Police station, sangareddy District, registered for the offences under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, (for short, 'BNS') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Heard Ms. V. Mythili, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed the offences and the5r were falsely implicated in the present crime. Respondent No.2 has implicateci all the family members of her husband/petitioner No.l by making i t j i I 2 omnibus allegations. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the ingredients of the offences under Section 85 of the BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act Sections are not attracl-ed against the petitioners. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners is clear abuse of the procession of the law.

4. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioners. Whether the petitioners have committed the offence or not has to be revealed cluring the course of investigation and that stage has not yet been reached. Hence, at this stage, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings in Crime No.261. of 2025.

5. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, il- reveals that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioners. However, the offences levelled against the petitioners are punishable with an imprisonment below seven years.

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the respective parties, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, the lnvestigating Oflicer is directed to scrupulously follow the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and the guidelines.::":_"0 by the 3 Apex court in Arnesh Kumar vs. state of Biharr and conclude the investigation.

7. It is made clear that the petitioners/accused Nos. I to z shall cooperate with the Investigating oflicer for the investigation and make themselves available to him as and when required and also provide the information/documents as sought by him to conclude the investigation.

8. If the petitioners/accused Nos. L to T fail to cooperate with the Investigating officer for investigation, the Investigating oflicer is at liberty to take action against them in accordance with law.

9. Subject to the above directions, the criminal petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. 'Cp"tr) A ac+ e+5 //TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court at Narayankhed. 2. The Station House Officer, Narayankhed Police Station, Sangareddy District. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad TOUTI

4. One CC to Ms V.MYTHILI Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies \qr NVB i .l __i HIGH COURT JSR,J DATED:1511212025 ORDER CRLP.No.16750 of 2025 i E. C) C) +s' s\ \ ,VclH * .d DISPOSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION I .@ W