##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8264 of 2022

Date: 01.04.2026

Between:

Thirlapuram Janardhan Reddy and 2 others ...Petitioners

AND State of Telangana,

Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad and

another ...Respondents

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.2158 of 2020 on the file of learned VIII

Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal at Athivelli.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners herein used to harass the de facto complainant and that on 29.10.2020, at around 11:00 hours, accused No.1 forcibly taken away the mobile from the hands of the complainant and beat her on face and damaged the phone by hitting on floor, accused No.2 has

2

assaulted and beat the de facto complainant with hands and at the same time accused No.3 also beat LW.1 indiscriminately and when she fell down, accused No.3 gave fist blows on her face and kicked with legs on her back, due to which she received bleeding injuries to her right cheeks and oozing blood from her nose. Witnessing the incident LWs.6 and 7 rushed there and rescued the de facto complainant from the hands of the accused persons and she was treated at Medivision Hospital, Shapurnagar. Thus, charge sheet is laid for the offences under

Sections 324, 427 and 506 r/w. 34 of IPC against the petitioners.

3. Heard Sri Papaiah Peddakula, learned counsel representing Mr.Sricharan Telaprolu, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Arun Kumar Doddla, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have never committed any of the offences alleged by the de facto complainant, and that there are matrimonial disputes between the de facto complainant and her husband, with which the petitioners are in no way concerned. He further submits that the allegations made in the complaint filed under Section 498-A of IPC by the de facto complainant reflects that there were certain

3

disputes regarding the salary earned by her and the allegation that it was being taken away by her in-laws. Thus, the de facto complainant, bearing grudge against the petitioners herein, has filed a false case against them. The petitioners have never harassed the de facto complainant in any manner. In fact, the de facto complainant and her husband had been living separately from the petitioners for a long period, and it was only during the lockdown, at the instance of the mother-in-law, they came and joined the matrimonial home. The petitioners herein never caused any harm to the de facto complainant. He, therefore, prayed to

quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation revealed that the petitioners had harassed the de facto complainant and that there are eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. He further contended that the averments under Section 498-A of IPC cannot form a ground for seeking quashment in the present case. Since a prima facie case has been made out against the petitioners, this is not a fit case to quash the

proceedings. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Perused the record.

4

7. The allegations in the complaint point out that there are certain marital disputes between the de facto complainant and her husband. It is averred that, ever since the time of marriage, the petitioners herein, along with her husband, have tortured her physically and mentally. It is further stated that she lodged complaints in the years 2015 and 2020 at Nampally and Jeedimetla Police Stations respectively, and that, on 03.08.2020, her in-laws attacked her and her son, following which she

escaped and lodged a complaint with Jee