THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2880 OF 2025

ORDER :

This criminal petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioners seeking the Court to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.3300 of 2021 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 25.11.2019, at 16:00 hours, a complaint was received from respondent No.2, who is the de facto complainant alleging that she is the legally wedded wife of petitioner No.1 and that their marriage was solemnized on 19.11.2015, in Hyderabad, as an arranged marriage. The complainant stated that her father spent Rs.8,00,000/- on the marriage, including Rs.75,000/- for bike, 15 tulas of gold, household articles worth Rs.1,00,000/- and a saree worth Rs.25,000/- for her mother-in-law. She further stated that petitioner No.1 and his family demanded Rs.4,00,000/- as dowry, which her father reluctantly paid. After the marriage, the complainant joined petitioner No.1 in his house, where she was allegedly treated brutally by her in-laws. Her husband, the petitioner No.1, was in the habit of consuming alcohol and would beat her for flimsy reasons and his parents allegedly harassed her continuously, demanding additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- from her parents. The complainant became pregnant and was left in her parental home in the ninth month of pregnancy, as per custom. Petitioner No.1 allegedly beat her during her pregnancy and did not visit her at her parental home. Petitioner No.1 and complainant were blessed with a baby boy on 07.12.2016 and the 21^st day ceremony was arranged by her parents, but after the ceremony, her husband did not take her back to his home and when her parents demanded petitioner No.1 to take her back to the matrimonial home, he refused stating that unless additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- is paid he would not take her. It was further stated that on 17.11.2019, when she along with her parents went to her husband's house, she came to know that petitioner No.1 had obtained an ex-parte divorce decree on 15.07.2019, against her by giving wrong address for serving the notice, which resulted in the notice not being served. Despite the court's direction for personal service, the notice was returned un-served. Her husband allegedly served a memo with false averments stating that he had served the notice personally and through courier, and that she had refused to take the summons. She alleged that her husband was in the process of getting married again, based on the ex-parte decree obtained through false means and by misleading the court. Hence, requested the police to take action against the accused. Based on these allegations, a case was registered against the petitioners vide FIR No.815 of 2019 for the above offences.

3. Heard Sri G.Mahesh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent-State and Sri G.Anand Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the 2^nd respondent left petitioner No.1's society in May 2016 and filed a complaint alleging cruelty and dowry demand in November 2019, more than three years later. The petitioners claim they did not commit any offenses as alleged in the complaint. Instead, 2nd respondent lodged the complaint upon learning that petitioner No.1 was getting married again on 29.11.2019, as a counter to the divorce petition filed by petitioner No.1 in January 2018. He further contended that according to the complaint and charge sheet, petitioner No.1 left the 2^nd respondent in her maternal home during her ninth month pregnancy in the year 2016, following a customary practice. However