The High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court, Hyderabad

2. Smt Sara Nousheen, W/o [tlohd Abdul Samad Aged about 25 years Occ Housewife , Rio H Ub t A-t 2-419t731 Hafeezbab- Nagar ,Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad ...RespondenUDefacto Complai nant 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 docket order dated. 21.11.2025 in CRl.Mp.No. sg1ol2ozs in C.i.trto.18651 of 2019 pending on the file of the XV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Hyderabad to recall the NBW issued against the petitioner/accused No.01 on 21-11-2025 without insisting the presence of petitioner/accused No. 01 in the interest of justice This petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the.Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Shaik Hussain ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behatf of the Respondent No. 1 and none appeared for the ResPondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER TN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICB J.SR.EENTVAS RAO P o t Date,: 17.12.2025 Between: Mohd Abdul Samad The State of Telangana, !9n. bV its Public prosecuror, High Court, Hyderabad and another. AND Order ...Petitioner Respondents This criminar petition is filed by the petitioner, aggrieved by the order dated zr.rr.z025 passed by rhe XV Additionar chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad, in crl.M.p.No.59l 0 of 2025 in c.c. No.18651 of 2019, whereby the application fired by the petitioner seeking recall of the NBw issued against him was dismissed. 2' Heard Mr.Nouman, rearned counser representing Mr.shaik Hussain, learned counser for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao veeramalla, rearned Additionar pubric prosecutor for respondent No.l -State. \ I I a,

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No. I in C.C.No.1865 I of 2019 and NBW was issued against him on 13.11 .2024. The petitioner, along with the other accused, filed an application vide Crl.M.P.No.59l0 of 2025 seeking recall of the NBW. In the said application, it was specifically stated that accused Nos. 2 and 3 were bedridden and the petitioner was attending to them and due to miscommunication with his counsel, the petitioner could not appear before the trial Court on the said date. Due to same, NBW was issued to the petitioner. The trial Court, without properly considering the reasons assigned in the application, dismissed the application insofar as the petitioner is concerned, while allowing the same in favour of accused Nos. 2 and 3. He further submitted that the petitioner is willing to appear before the trial Court and ditigently prosecute the proceedings. Unless the NBW issued against the petitioner is recalled, the petitioner would be put to great hardship.

4. Leamed Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that due to the non-cooperation of the petitioner, the trial Court has not been able to proceed with the matter. The petitioner remained absent on several I I ..?.. occasions, and therefore, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner.

5. Having considered the rival submissions rnade by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record it reveals that the petitioner is accused No.l in c.c. No. 18651 of 2019 for the offences under Section 498-A of the tndian penal Code, 1860, and Sections 4 and6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 196r. The petitioner, along with accused Nos.2 and 3, who are none other than the parents of the petitioner filed an application, namely crl.M.P.No.59l0 of 2025, seeking recall of the NBw issued against him. The trial Court allowed the application in part insofar as accused Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned and dismissed the application against the petitioner. The record further reveals that the petitioner is engaged in private employment. According to the averments made in the petition as well as in the memorandum of grounds, accused Nos.2 and 3 were suffering from ill health, and the petitioner was attending to their welfare. It is further averred that due to miscommunication between \ the petitioner and his counsel, the petitioner could not appear before the trial Court on the said date. \ (\ ii4i:

6. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 21.11.2025 passed by the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, Crl.M.P.No.59l0 of 2025 in C.C.No.18651 of 2019, in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking recall of the NBW, is hereby set aside. Consequently, the NBW issued against the petitioner is recalled, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,0001- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The petitioner shall also file a sworn undertaking before the trial Court that he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date of hearing, and shall cooperate for the expeditious disposal of C.C.No.l8651 of 2019.

7. Subject to the above directions, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. SD/- A.PRATHIMA PUTY //TRUE COPY// OFFICER To,

1. The XV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at HYd 2. The Station House Officer, Woman Police Station South Zone, HYderabad of Telangana at 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor' High Court for the State Hyderabad.(OUT)

4. OilL CC to bri Shaik Hussain, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies HIGH COURT JSR, J DATED i1711212025 .t \ t . -i,. .j,-r.it % s -.:. s t' i! ,( -- \ \ *- r{oH o lJ- .P ,.&.# ORDER CRLP.No.16917 of 2025 l.; DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION 6 dd'it\t ^6t-ul:)