THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3666 of 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 7 in C.C.No.1212 of 2024 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 82(1), 352 read with 3(5) of BNS.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 04.11.2024 the de facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Police stating that she had married Neeradi Shekar of the same village on 25.01.2012 through a love marriage, which was later accepted by elders. The couple initially lived at Yellammabanda, Kukatpally, and after a year were blessed with twins, a boy and a girl, and lived happily for four years. In the year 2018, her husband left home without informing her, and despite her efforts, he could not be traced. Thereafter, her in-laws, namely Shanthamma, Bhagavanthu, her brother-in-law Neeradi Bharathaiah, sister-in-law Bharathamma, and her husband Chennaiah, harassed her both physically and mentally for six years while she alone looked after the children. Later, she came to know that her husband had contracted a second marriage with Navya of Chinthal, Hyderabad, and about a week prior to the complaint, she found them at Achampeta, brought them to Yedtla, and a panchayathi was held before elders. During the panchayathi, her husband and in-laws threatened her by stating that she should live with all of them or hand over the children and go away, and they further warned her with dire consequences.

3. Heard Sri Madhirala Vishnuvardhan Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 – State. Though notice served upon respondent No.2, none appeared on her behalf.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners were law-abiding persons and that, as per the narration of the de facto complainant, petitioner Nos.1 to 5 resided in one house while petitioner Nos.6 and 7 resided in another, and therefore it was not possible for them to harass the complainant. He further submitted that the petitioners were innocent of the offences alleged and had been falsely implicated, and that there was no truth in the allegations, which were invented only to harass and blackmail them. The counsel further submitted that there was no valid reason to register a case against the petitioners and that the complaint lacked any basis to take cognizance. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners by allowing this criminal petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the matter is at the stage of trial and there are serious allegations against the petitioners. Therefore, at this stage quashing of proceedings against them do not arise and prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon a perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the marriage between the de facto complainant and accused No.1 was solemnized on 25.01.2012, and disputes arose thereafter, leading to allegations of mental and physical harassment, dowry demands, and ill-treatment by accused No.1. The allegations against accused No.1 are specific and pertain to acts of cruelty and dowry harassment within the matrimonial home, and therefore, involve disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon at this stage under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.

7. However, with respect to petitioner Nos.2 to 7, it appears that the allegations made in the complaint are vague and general in nature, and no specific overt act has been attributed to them. There is no clear material to show that continuous presence in the matrimonial household or direct involvement in the alleged acts. The Hon’ble Supreme Court i