THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4346 OF 2025

ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.956 of 2025 on the file of XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 85 and 351 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de facto complainant gave a complaint to the police stating that she married Shaik Yaseen on 01.11.2023, and her parents gave 8 tulas of gold and household articles worth Rs.30,00,000/- as dowry at the time of marriage. However, her husband and in-laws started harassing and ill-treating her soon after the marriage, demanding extra dowry and a flat. During her pregnancy, her husband and in-laws forced her to abort the child and without her knowledge they gave tablet and medicine for aborting, and she suffered a miscarriage. It is stated that the mother-in-law and sister-in-

law of respondent No.2, instigated her husband against her, leading to physical and mental torture. The complainant further alleged that her husband forced her to abort her second pregnancy and threatened her, saying that he would not allow her to conceive a child until she fulfills his dowry demands. On 07.07.2024, her husband and in-laws threw her out of the house saying that she could not return until she fulfills their dowry demands. The complainant claimed that she used to work in Rhysley as Customer executive and her salary was Rs.25,000/-and her husband used to take Rs.15,000/- every month from her salary for eight months and that her gold, furniture, and electronic items were still in the custody of her husband and his family members who refused to return her.

3. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered the case in Crime No.244 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 85 and 351 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and after completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet vide C.C.No.956 of 2025 before the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 filed the present criminal petition to quash the proceedings against them.

4. Heard Sri Mohammed Masood Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 – State and Sri Syed Osman, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and have no connection to the alleged offence and that the Investigating Officer conducted a superficial inquiry and filed a charge sheet without proper investigation. He further submitted that petitioner No.3/accused No. 4 is the married sister of accused No.1 and has been living separately with her family. She was intentionally implicated in the case, and there are no serious allegations against her in the complaint or 161 statements and that the marriage between accused No.1 and respondent No.2 was without any dowry demands, but respondent No.2 started harassing accused No.1 to leave his parents and to take a separate house near her parents' house.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that respondent No.2 demanded Rs.15 lakhs for Australia visa processing, which they could not arrange and after respondent No.2 left the company of accused No.1, himself and his family members tried to reconcile, but she refused. Accused No.1 filed a divorce case, and respondent No.2 filed a false dowry harassment case and restitution of conjugal rights case and that the acts of respondent No.2 are a counterblast to settle terms with accused No.1 and his family members. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners by allowing this crim