CRLP/2296/2024 of Sridhara Surendra Babu Vs The State of Telangana on 19 December 2025

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners- accused Nos.1 to 3, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.895 of 2Q23 on the file of Vlll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad' Medchal (for short, the trial Court), registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498-4 and 509 of lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC') in Crime No.176 of 2023 on the file of Dundigal Police Station, Cyberabad, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

2. Heard Sri.Raja Gopallavan Tayi, learrr d counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.1 lc and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, leamed Ad: tional Public Prosecutor for the State. No representatiorr on behalf of respondent No.2. Perused the record.

3. ln brief, the prosecution case is that ar;, :used No.'l is the husband of respondent No.2 (the de-factct complainant), while accused Nos.2 and 3 are her mother-in-k w and father- in-law respectively. Respondent No.2 married e ccused No.1, the son of accused Nos.2 and 3. Fifteen <1, rys after the marriage, the couple moved to the USA, wh :re their two sons were born. lt is alleged that thereafter a;cused No.1 began harassing respondent No.2 by physica y assaulting and abusing her. The in-laws, relatives, an j friends of accused No.1 allegedly encouraged such har,a;sment. lt is further alleged that accused No.3 outraged the modesty of respondent No.2. Consequently, respondent t,l >.2 filed the present case alleging offences under Sections 49g-A and 509 of the lndian Penal Code. I j I tI

,r.

a t

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that respondent No.2 has falsely implicated the petitioners in the offences alleged under Sections 498-4 and 509 of the lndian Penal Code. He submitted that respondent No.2 had earlier lodged a cornplaint datd 23.01.2020, which was registered as FIR No.8 of 2020 at P.S. IT Corridor, Cyberabad District, and that the Xlll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, was pleased to acquit the petitioners of all the charges in C.C. No.1 6 of 2021

(i) lt is further contended that respondent No.2 again lodged a complaint on 14.09.2022, which was registered as FIR No.13 of 2022 at Disha Women U/G Police Station, Kadapa, and the same was taken cognizance as C.C. No.1716 of 2022 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition and Excise, Kadapa District. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, in Crl.P. No.1412 of 2023, was pl,eased to grant interim stay of all further proceedings, including the appearance of pelitioner Nos.2 and 3 before the trial Court in the said case

(ii) Learned counsel fudher submitted that respondent No.2 thereafter fibd a private complaint before the ll Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kadapa, pursuant to which FIR No.9B of

2023 came to be registered on 29.O3.2O2i1 He also cbntended that respondent No.2 lodged another compl;ri rt dated 01 .03.2023, registered as FIR No.176 of 2O23 on the fil,r of Dundigal police Station, Cyberabad, which was taken cogniz€ nce as C.C. No.g95 of 2023 on the file of the Vlll Additional Met opolitan Magistrate. Cyberabad at Medchal, for the alleged offer ces under Sections 498-4 and 509 lPC.

(iii) Aggrieved thereby, the present Criminir petition has been filed seeking quashment of the proceedir 7s against the petitioners in C.C.No.89S of 2023 pending b >fore the trial Court. lt is further contended by the learned r: lunsel for the petitioners that respondent No.2 has been repr: rtedly lodging complaints and registering FlRs at different ;x rlice stations, falsely implicating and thereby harassing fl^ e petitioners herein. lt is further contended by the leamed c< unsel for the petitioners that respondent No.2 has institutec false cases with an ulterior motive to harass the petition,_. s by falsely implicating them. lt is submitted that due to tlr, I continuous harassment allegedly meted out by responde rt No.2, the career of petitioner No.1 has been adversely ;rffected and I

the health of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 the in-laws has deteriorated.

5. While seeking quashment of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Suprerne Court of lndia in Parteek Bansal v. Sfafe of Raiasthan, wherein it was held as under: "...7. Without going into these datutory provisions and the case /aws relied upon by the pafties, we are aonvinced that the impugned proceedings are nothirtg but an abuse of the process of law. lt is not &nbd by the respondent Nos. 2 atd 3 that they did not lodge complaint at Hisar. They also did not fite an application withdrawing their complaint on the ground that it was wrongly filed here or that the said complaint may be transferred to Udaipur for invesligation as the offence was committed at (2020) 3 SCC 54 (2@1) 6 SCC ,8, (2004) I SCC 100 Udaipur. They albwed the investigating agency to continue to investigate in which their statefilents were also recorded. The respondent No.3 was a gazefr.ed Police Offrcer at the relevant time aN was a/so well aware of the laws, n padicular the Cr.P.C. and the provisions thereto. Neither lhe complainant nor the victim entered the witness fux before the Hisar Courl allowing total wastage of the valuable time of lhe Couft and the investigating agency. Merely because she was a Police Officer, she first manqed to get an FIR lodged at Hisar through her father, and tlareafter she noved to her hometown at Udaipur and got anotlBr complaint loclged by her father within a week..".

6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners and that the E_ \

present case is not a fit one for quashment. t was further submitted that the issues involved are triable n nature and that the truth or otherwise of the alleget ons can be determined only after a full-fledged trial before I re competent Court. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal :' the present Criminal Petition

7. A perusal of the record discloses that nl;pondent No.2 has been lodging complaints one after the other. Hr: conduct in turning hostile before the Xlll Additional Metropolitar Magistrate Court, Kukatpally, notwithstanding her own complairr , clearly indicates that her intention was only to harass the petitic ners by subjecting them to criminal proceedings both at Hydera bad and Kadapa It is evident that respondent No.2 has lodged [our complaints at different police stations, pursuant to which four FlRs came to be registered. FIR No.8 of 2O2O was taken cognizrr rce as C.C. No.16 of 2021, which culminated in the acquittal of he petitioners, as respondent No.2 turned hostile before ttr, r Xlll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Kukatpally.

8. A perusal of the record unmistakably der ronstrates a clear pattern of abuse of the criminal process b1 respondent

No.2. She has been lodging complaints one after the other at different police stations on substantially similar allegations, compelling the petitioners to face repeated criminal proceedings at multiple places. Her conduct in turning hostile before the Xlll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Kukatpally, despite being the complainant herself, further reinforces the inference that the criminal law has been set in motion not for redressal of any genuine grievance, but with the sole intention of harassing the petltioners.

9. lt is evident that respondent No.2 has lodged four complaints at different police stations, resulting in registration of four FlRs. FIR No.8 of 2020, which was taken cognizance as C.C. No.16 of 2021, ultimately ended in acquittal of the petitioners solely on account of respondent No.2 turning hostile before the trial Court. The repeated institution of criminal proceedings, even after such acquittal, clearly discloses mala fides and an oblique motive

10. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C can and ought to be exercised where criminal proceedings are f manifestly attended with mala fides, or wtrere the process of law is being used as a weapon of harassment rather t tan for the purpose of justice. The present case squarely fa I ; within the said parameters, as permitting the continuation of the impugned proceedings would amount to allowing abusr: of the process of Court and would result in grave injustice to the g etitioners.

11. ln such circumstances, compelling the pe itioners to undergo yet another criminal trial on identical allegatior rs would serve no fruitful purpose and would be contrary to the linciples laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court governing the ,? (ercise of inherent jurisdiction. Hence, the impugned proceedinll: , are liable to be quashed.

12. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allo, red and the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.895 of 2023 on the file of VIr Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Medchal, are hereby quashed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous rpplications, if any, shall stand closed sd/- I I I[. OSMAN ALI BAIG I STANT REGISTRAR-,---- n5 //TRUE COPY// t'. The Vlll Addl. lvletropolitan lvlagistrate, Cyberabad, At I\i/]€ lchal sEcTroN oFFrcER

To, Q.ntd

(

z. -rhe Station House officer, Dundrgal Police Statron, Cyberabad.

3. One CC to Sri. Rajagopallavan Tayi, Advocate tOpUCI

4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court br the State of Telangana. [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies. Yf R /kam 1_I.1, if:, | -./

HIGH COURT DATED:1911212025

ORDER

CRLP.No.2296 ot 2024 3 tr rN 202$ f r H{: S

oo * II \ ALLOWING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITIO {. dfJ nf,/ae ( *