THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.10963 and 1835 of 2023

COMMON ORDER

Since the proceedings in both the Criminal Petitions are arising out of the same Crime No.297 of 2021 and as the parties are common, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order.

2. Criminal Petition No.10963 of 2023 is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) by the defacto complainant, to quash the impugned order dated 12.07.2021 passed in Crl.M.P.No.350 of 2021 in Crime No.297 of 2021 by the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court) at Hyderabad. By the impugned order, the trial Court dismissed the petition filed to issue search warrant in respect of the premises of accused No.1. Whereas, Criminal Petition No.1835 of 2023 is filed by accused Nos.1 to 4 to quash the proceedings against them in Criminal Revision Petition No.66 of 2021 pending on the file of I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad, in which the order dated

12.07.2021 is under challenge.

3. For the purpose of disposal of these Criminal Petitions, the facts in Criminal Petition No.10963 of 2023 are taken into consideration.

4. The defacto complainant married accused No.1 on 25.11.2020 and at the time of marriage, the parents of the petitioner gave Rs.10,23,00,000/- approximately as dowry to accused No.1. Later, accused No.1 along with other accused used to harass the defacto complainant physically and mentally and also used to threaten her with dire consequences. Hence, a case was registered in Crime No. 297 of 2021 before the WPS, DD Police Station, Hyderabad.

5. Heard Sri A.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, learned Counsel for the defacto complainant, Sri Chetluru Sreenivas, learned counsel for accused Nos.1 to 4 and Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the proceedings in Crl.M.P.No.350 of 2021 initiated for search and seizure of the property of accused persons, trial Court ought to have issued notice to the defacto complainant before passing the impugned order as the defacto complainant is the victim.

Hence, he prayed the Court to allow the Criminal Petition by quashing the impugned order dated 12.07.2021.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for accused Nos.1 to 4 opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the defacto complainant stating that there is no documentary evidence to prove the entrustment of gold articles worth of Rs.10,23,00,000/- and cash of Rs.20,00,000/- to accused No.1. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

8. Considering the rival submissions, the trial Court observed that the issue in the matter is matrimonial issue, as such, it is necessary to maintain peace and harmony in matrimonial houses. Further, there is no documentary evidence to prove that gold jewellery worth of Rs.10,23,00,000/- and cash of Rs.20,00,000/- as dowry at the time of marriage of accused No.1 with the defacto complainant. Hence, the trial Court has dismissed the petition filed for issuing search warrant, in order to protect the families from getting defamed in the society.

9. As seen from the record, it is the main contention of the complainant that at the time of marriage, the parents of the defacto complainant gave gold jewellery worth of Rs.10,23,00,000/- and cash of Rs.20,00,000/- as dowry. It is pertinent to note that the case is at the stage of investigation. As rightly observed by the trial Court, the defacto complainant has not produced any documentary evidence to prove that the gold jewellery worth of Rs.10,23,00,000/- and cash of Rs.20,00,000/- was given as dowry at time of marriage of accused No.1 with the defacto complainant. Further, there is no iota of evidence to conclude that the said gold jewellery and cash were in the possession of the accused persons.

10. For better appreciation of the facts of the case, it is apt to refer to Section