The court ruled that unexplained delays in filing complaints and lack of consistent allegations can undermine credibility, allowing for the quashing of proceedings.

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.97 of 2025 of Bhongir Rural Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 137 (2), 351(2) read with 3(5) read with 62 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘ BNS ’).

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a report against the petitioners before the Police stating that she had married Anugu Venkat Reddy on 25.02.2023 and initially lived with him at her aunt's house in Uppal for five months. Thereafter, they moved to Cincinnati, Ohio, USA, where her husband worked. She alleged that since the marriage, her husband subjected her to mental and physical harassment and humiliated her publicly. Unable to bear the abuse, she informed her parents, who advised her to compromise. On 16.01.2025, she returned to India and stayed at her uncle Samala Satti Reddy’s house in Mannevaripampu village. On the evening of 30.01.2025, her uncles, i.e., the petitioners, allegedly came to her uncle’s house in an Innova vehicle (TS08JF6347), threatened her, and attempted to forcibly take her away. Her uncle intervened, and both she and her uncle escaped to Bhongir Hospital. However, the accused stayed there until 21:30 hours, continuing their attempts. As no resolution came from the village elders, she filed the complaint fearing for her life. Aggrieved by the said complaint, the petitioners filed the present criminal petition to quash the proceedings against them.

3. Heard Sri A.P. Suresh Ram, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well s Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 – State and Sri Gopi Reddy Chandrasekhar Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case without any involvement in the alleged crime, based solely on a false and baseless complaint lodged by the de facto complainant and that the FIR appeared to be an after- thought, aimed at pressuring the petitioners into succumbing to the illegal demands of the complainant. He further submitted that the complaint had been filed with mala fide intentions, solely to extort a large sum of money from the petitioners by misusing the process of law. Even if the allegations in the FIR were taken at face value, they did not disclose any offence against the petitioners, and the contents of the FIR did not prima facie constitute any offence under the relevant provisions of the BNS . Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners by allowing this criminal petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that the investigation was not yet completed. At this stage, quashing of proceedings against the petitioners does not arise. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the case is at the stage of investigation. At this stage, it cannot be said that no offence has occurred. He further submitted that there is already an MOU between the parties and that the de facto complainant is yet to receive some amount from the petitioners. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

7. In the light of the submissions made by both the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, the allegation against the petitioners is