THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3498 of 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.10007 of 2022 on the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498 (A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short ‘DP Act’).

2. The brief facts of the case are that 04.03.2021 a complaint was received from respondent No.2 stating that her marriage with petitioner No.1 was solemnized on 29.04.2018 at Sitara Grand Hotel, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, as per Hindu customs. The marriage was arranged by her mother-in-law’s brother, Sri P. Gopaiah. Her husband, employed as a Customer Executive at ICICI Bank, Miyapur Branch, along with his parents, allegedly demanded and received dowry of Rs.4,00,000/- in cash, two tolas of gold during engagement, and an additional three tolas for her husband and ten tolas for herself during the marriage, along with household articles worth Rs.3,00,000/-, a bike worth Rs.1,50,000/-, and marriage expenses of Rs.15,00,000/-. After marriage, she moved into her in-laws’ house at Allwyn Colony, KPHB, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, where she was subjected to physical and mental harassment by her husband, in-laws, and co- sister, who treated her like a maid and constantly demanded more dowry. She was also pressured to bring Rs.2,00,000/- twice from her parents and was later forced to transfer her parental properties.

3. When she stopped responding to their demands, the harassment intensified, and they even spread rumors that she was mentally ill. Thereafter, she was pregnant, her in-laws and husband forced her to abort the child and denied her medical care. When her mother came to take her for a check- up, she was threatened not to return. Her mother eventually took her to her parental home, where she delivered a premature baby boy via emergency C-section on 09.06.2019. Despite being informed, her husband and his family did not visit. A complaint was lodged at SR Nagar Police Station, following which they visited for the child’s 21st-day ceremony but later blocked all communication. Another complaint was made in September 2020, leading to counseling at BHAROSA, where the husband’s inconsistent behavior indicated his unwillingness to reunite with her despite having a child.

4. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.230 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 498 (A) of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act and after completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet vide C.C.No.10007 of 2022 before the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed the present criminal petition.

5. Heard Smt. P. Sree Ramya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and 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.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there are no specific or credible allegations against the petitioners, and the complaint lacks the basic ingredients necessary to constitute the alleged offences under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act. He further submitted that the complaint appears to have been filed only to harass the petitioners, and the proceedings are being misused and that the alleged incident occurred in the year 2018, but the complaint was lodged belatedly in the year 2021 without any proper explanation.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners maintain a good reputation and have been falsely implicated due to influence by the de facto complainant and that petitioner No.2 even advised the couple to live peacefully. He further contended that the d