THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.10203 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner – accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2596 of 2019 on the file of the learned XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 498A, 427, 324, 448, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Heard the submissions of Sri Habeeb Abubakar Alhamed, 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 incidents narrated by the de facto complainant in the complaint fall back to 2016 and 2017 and that an FIR is registered in 2018. The petitioner failed to explain the delay of one year in making a complaint, if at all the alleged incidents have occurred in 2016 itself, she has not lodged any complaint immediately. Therefore, that itself shows the falsity in the complaint and therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the offence under Section 498A of IPC is continuous in nature and concept of delay cannot be applied in such cases and further he has also submitted that the case was registered in 2017 itself and thereafter transferred to women police station. The crime Number is 179 of 2017 which was transferred to women police station on 11.09.2018 and thus, it was renumbered as 211 of 2018. He further submitted that the complaint reveals the allegations against the petitioner and also it is supported by statement of LW5. The evidence of LW5 who is a doctor of Osmania General Hospital who treated the de facto complainant and her parents, would be crucial in this case, which can be evaluated during the course of trial. He therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The allegations in the complaint point out the offences under Sections 498A, 427, 324, 448, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act, against the petitioner-accused No.1 who is the husband of the de facto complainant.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Dilawar Singh v. State of Delhi, (2007) 12 SCC 641 wherein it was held that delay in filing the complaint because of police inaction has to be explained by calling for the records from the police. By relying on this decision, the counsel was emphasizing on the point that there is one year delay in the present case in lodging the complaint. However, it is borne out by record that the complaint was initially lodged in 2017 itself and thereafter transferred to women police station. The point of delay cannot be agitated in such cases.

8. Learned counsel also relied upon a decision of this Court in Crl.P.No.1316 of 2022, wherein the alleged offences were under Sections 323, 354, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. It was held that to prove the basic allegations against the petitioners, no single independent witness was examined by the police and that out of the 12 list of witnesses cited, five were the family members of the complainant who are interested witnesses and thus, the Court has quashed the petition.

9. In this context it is pertinent to take note of the fact that LW5 in the charge sheet is a doctor who treated the de facto complainant and her parents and his evidence would be tested during the course of trial. Therefore, the said decision cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case.

10. In view of the facts and circumstances, the Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the learned XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, to dispose of C.C.No.2596 of 2019 at the earliest, as it pertains to the year 2019, strictly in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of the observations made