IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.9405 OF 2024

17^TH DECEMBER, 2025

Between:

Gouse Pasha and 6 others. … Petitioners

AND

The State of Telangana

Rep. through Public Prosecutor and 1 other. …Respondents

O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 7

to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.331 of 2024 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Mahabubnagar. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Section 498-A read with 109 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘D.P.Act’) and section 4 of the Muslim (women

protection of rights on marriage) Act 2019 (for short ‘the Act’).

2. Heard M/s. Rakesh Jangem, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Mr.B.Srinivas, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and

Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the record.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the Accused No.1 is the husband of the defacto complainant and Accused No.2 to 7 are relatives. Marriage of accused No.1 with defacto complainant was solemnized on 21.05.2023. At the time of her marriage, her parents presented Rs.3,00,000/- through RTGS from Union Bank of India on 4^th May, 2023 and other house hold articles to her husband as dowry. Thereafter some disputes took place between the petitioners and defacto complainant and the petitioners also demanded additional dowry. Subsequently, she was abandoned from the house. Later, when the defacto complainant came to her in laws house to see her husband, she was not allowed into the house and after her husband came to the house from outside, he abused and pushed her and shouted Talaq-Talaq-Talaq. Hence, the respondent No.2 filed the present case for the offences under Section 498-A read with 109 of IPC and section 3 and 4 of D.P.Act and section 4 of the Act.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the police investigated and filed charge sheet against the petitioners-A1 to A3 by deleting the petitioners-A4 to A7. Petitioner-accused No.4 is the sister of A1, petitioner-accused No.5 is the brother in law of A1 and husband of

A4, petitioner-accused No.6 is sister of A1, petitioner-accused No.7 is brother of A1. But, the learned Magistrate has ordered for re- investigation. Learned counsel submitted that the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to order re-investigation and placed reliance upon a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali @ Deepak and others, (2013) 5 SCC 762, wherein in paras 28 and 30 it was

held as under-

28. The next question that comes up for consideration of this Court is whether the empowered Magistrate has the jurisdiction to direct “further investigation” or “fresh investigation”. As far as the latter is concerned, the law declared by this Court consistently is that the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to direct “fresh” or “de novo” investigation. However, once the report is filed, the Magistrate has jurisdiction to accept the report or reject the same right at the threshold. Even after accepting the report, it has the jurisdiction to discharge the accused or frame the charge and put him to trial. But there are no provisions in the Code which empower the Magistrate to disturb the status of an accused pending investigation or when report is filed to wipe out the report and its effects in law. Reference in this regard can be made to K.Chandrasekhar v. State of Kerala, (1998) 5 SCC 223: 1998 SCC (Cri) 1291 Ramachandran v. R.Udhayakumar³, Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab⁴, Mithabhai

3 (2008) 5 SCC 413: (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 631 4 (2009) 1 SCC 441: (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 523

Pashabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat⁵ and Babubhai v. State of Gujarat⁶

30. The power of the court to pass an order for further investigation has been a matter of judicial concern for some time now. The Courts have taken somewhat di