THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.1874 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner – accused seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.248 of 2024 on the file of the learned Special Magistrate of I Class (Mobile) for Trial of Cases under PCR Act – cum – IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Khammam, registered for the offences under Sections 498-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short “DP Act”).

2. Heard the submissions of Sri Nooty Vasishta Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 – State.

3. The learned petitioner counsel has submitted that the petitioner herein has filed a divorce OP, subsequent to which, the present complaint is filed as an afterthought just to harass the petitioner. He further submitted that if really the petitioner has harassed the de facto complainant, she should have lodged the complaint much earlier but not as a counter blast. Hence, there is no truth in the allegations leveled by the de facto complainant, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the complaint and also the statement of witnesses reveal the allegations against the petitioner and hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The learned petitioner counsel relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC 735. In Dara Lakshmi Narayana’s case (supra), the respondent No.2/wife used to leave the matrimonial home uninformed and on one such occasion when she left the matrimonial house, the husband made a police complaint and when the police found her whereabouts, she was allegedly living with someone and that after being counselled, she returned to her matrimonial home. It was further submitted that the wife addressed a letter to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirupathur Sub-Division requesting to close the complaint made by appellant No.1 wherein she admitted that she had left her

matrimonial house after quarrelling with appellant No.1 because of one Govindan, with whom she was talking over the phone for the past ten days continuously and that she would not repeat such acts in future. It was further submitted that respondent No.2 again left the matrimonial house leaving appellant No.1 and children behind. Then the husband having no other option has issued a legal notice seeking divorce by mutual consent. Thus, as a counter blast the present FIR was filed by respondent No.2/wife. Further, in the said case, there were no specific allegations against the appellants and the respondent No.2 left her matrimonial home on her own. In that backdrop, the Apex Court has held that when there are no specific allegations against the appellants the proceedings need to be quashed. Thus, the appeal was allowed and the impugned order of the High Court was set aside and as a result, the proceedings before the trial Court were quashed. Thus the facts of the present case differ from the above cited decision and hence is not applicable.

complainant. A perusal of the complaint and also the statement of LW1 points out the specific allegations against the petitioner herein dowry and also that he used to beat her and he necked her out of the house. The statement of the panchayath elder also points out the said allegations.

8. C.C.No.248 of 2024 on the file of the learned Special Magistrate of I Class (Mobile) for Trial of Cases under PCR Act – cum – IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Khammam is pending for trial. The truth or otherwise of the allegations shall be brought out during the course of trial. Hence, it is not proper to interfere with the judicial process at this stage.

9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of dispensing with the attendance of the petitioner before t