THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.854 of 2022

O R D E R :

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.7675 of 2021 on the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad (for short ‘trial Court’), pertaining to Crime No.109 of 2020 of W.P.S. CCS, DD, registered for the offences under Sections 498-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’).

2. Heard Mr. Mohd. Istiyaq Akbar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Mohd. Shafiuddin, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2- de facto complainant and Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. Perused the record.

3. The petitioner-accused No.1 is the husband of de facto complainant. The petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are the sister and mother of petitioner-accused No.1.

4. Brief facts of the case:

4.1. The 2^nd respondent-de facto complainant was married to petitioner- accused No.1 on 03.12.2019. At the time of marriage, certain amount of dowry was given. The de facto complainant has joined the conjugal society of petitioner-accused No.1 at her matrimonial home. They lived happily for a couple of days. Thereafter, the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 harassed the de facto complainant for want of fridge and also the costs incurred for reception.

4.2. When the de facto complainant came to know about the extra- marital affair of the petitioner-accused No.3, she was threatened by petitioner-accused No.3, not to disclose the same to anyone. When the de facto complainant informed the petitioner-accused No.1 about the said incident, the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 abused her and also threatened with dire consequences.

4.3. On 18.01.2020, when a panchayat was held in the presence of elders, the petitioner-accused No.1 has written a bond paper, promising to arrange a separate residence. However, he failed to act upon the said promise and did not take any steps in that regard. The petitioner-accused No.1 also stopped responding to the calls of de facto complainant and switched off his phone. On 30.01.2020, on knowing that the de facto complainant is intending to lodge a complaint against him, the petitioner- accused No.1 has arranged a room to set-up separate family and assured the de facto complainant that she would not be harassed by his family members. Believing the said assurance, the de facto complainant agreed to return to the house on 01.02.2020 and left to her parental house. However, on 01.02.2020, she came to know that petitioner-

accused No.1 has lodged a false complaint against her.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the case by the de facto complainant, only to wreck vengeance in view of the matrimonial disputes. It is further contended that the de facto complainant has not even stayed in the matrimonial home for six days. In fact, the petitioner-accused No.1 intended to take back the de facto complainant, but she refused for the same. The de facto complainant and petitioner-accused No.1 have already obtained a decree of divorce. Most of the witnesses are family members of de facto complainant and they are interested witnesses. It is also contended that except bald allegations, no specific overt acts are attributed to the petitioners. Thus, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent as well as learned Assistant Public Prosecutor in one tone contended that the petitioners herein have harassed the de facto complainant after her marriage with petitioner-accused No.1. It is further contended that all the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of tr