THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6025 of 2025

ORAL ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.5 to 8 in C.C.No.255 of 2025 on the file of the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 26.11.2024, de facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Police stating that her daughter, Sree Nithya, was married to Alimineti Rahul Reddy/accused No.1. The marriage was took place on 26.10.2023 at Event Villa Function Hall, Nagole, in the presence of elders. At the time of marriage, as per the demand of the groom and his family, she gave Rs.40 lakhs in cash, 35 tulas of gold, and ½ kg of silver as dowry. After the marriage, her daughter lived happily with her husband for about 10 days. Thereafter, Rahul Reddy left for Australia, leaving Sree Nithya at his parents' house in Korremula Village, where she stayed for two months. Later, after her husband sent her a visa, Sree Nithya joined him in Australia and they stayed at 8 Dennelly Crescent, South Morang VIC 3752. Subsequently, Sree Nithya informed her mother that Rahul Reddy had previously married another woman in Australia and had obtained a divorce. She further informed that he was subjecting her to mental and physical harassment, demanding she sell her property and give him additional money, stating the dowry given was insufficient. Eventually, he left her at the house of known persons and stopped responding to her calls. When the complainant informed the parents and relatives of Rahul Reddy about the situation, they threatened and abused her, warning her not to disclose the matter to anyone.

3. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.480 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and after completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet vide C.C.No.255 of 2025 before the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. Aggrieved by the said charge sheet, the petitioners/accused Nos.5 to 8 filed the present criminal petition to quash the proceedings against them.

4. Heard Sri Ch. Venkat Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - State. Though notice served upon respondent No.2, none appeared on her behalf.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were wrongly implicated in the said case and the allegations leveled against them, prima facie, do not constitute any offence as alleged in the complaint. He further submitted that the petitioners never interfered in the matrimonial disputes between accused No.1 and daughter of respondent No.2. Police filed the charge sheet without verifying the matter and there are no specific allegations against the petitioners except stating that they supported accused No.1.

Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners are not residing with accused No.1 and the daughter of respondent No.2 and further, there are no specific allegations against the petitioners. Therefore, he prayed the Court to pass appropriate orders.

7. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the petitioners are the distant relatives of accused No.1 and the allegations leveled against them are that they harassed the