Telangana High Court
Siddagoni Jagdishwar vs The State Of Telangana on 3 February, 2025
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.889 OF 2025
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short
'BNSS') seeking to quash F.I.R.No.235 of 2024 dated
11.10.2024 against the petitioners/accused Nos.5 to 7
pending on the file of Huzurnagar Police Station, Suryapet
District.
2. Heard Mr. Mirza Safiulla Baig, learned counsel for the
petitioners, and Ms. S. Madhavi, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor for the respondent - State. Perused the record.
3. FIR came to be lodged on the basis of direction of
JFCM, Huzurnagar, the private complaint was by
respondent No.2. FIR came to be registered as Crime
No.235 of 2024 on 11.10.2024 under Sections 61(2), 318(3),
316(2), 329(4), 351(2), 351(3) and 352 of BNSS. Cases are
filed by both husband and wife against each other with
various allegations.
JAK, J
4. Marriage of respondent No.2 was performed with
accused No.1 i.e., Siddagoni Manisha, allegations are
accused No.1 started quarrelling with respondent No.2,
without any reason, and that she was taken to several
hospitals for treatment of her gynaecological problems, but
did not take medication on time and caused financial loss
and mental agony to respondent No.2. It is further averred
that health issues were not disclosed by parents of accused
No.1 and respondent No.2 deceived keeping in dark. It is
further averred that accused No.1 never had intention to
maintain cordial relation(s) and a peaceful environment in
the marital house. That accused No.1 was always suspicious
about respondent No.2, when talking on phone and kept
questioning about the phone calls and checking messages.
5. It is stated that accused No.1 used to get angry on silly
issues, abuse in filthy language, was arrogant, that in spite
of several panchayats, there was no change. That on
17.10.2023, accused No.1 consumed phenyl, was taken to
hospital, that she had suicidal tendencies, and in such
JAK, J
circumstances, respondent No.2 was constrained to file
H.M.O.P.No.101 of 2024 for divorce.
6. It is averred that on 22.09.2024, when respondent
No.2, along with his parents, visited Tirumala, stayed at
Karthikeya Residency, accused Nos.1, 3 and 7 trespassed
into room and made galata abusing respondent No.2 and his
family members. That accused No.1, on 29.09.2024, keeping
all these in mind, illegally trespassed into the house of
respondent No.2 and threatened his family members with
dire consequences. Hence, complaint dated 11.10.2024 was
made and the said complaint was referred by JFCM and FIR
came to be registered as Crime No.235 of 2024 and under
investigation.
7. Learned counsel for petitioners/accused Nos.5 to 7
submitted that after marriage of respondent No.2, accused
No.1 came to know about the nefarious activities with
another woman, talking on phone and messaging with other
women and that when acts of respondent No.2 were
questioned, respondent No.2 levelled false allegations of
gynaecological problems, refused for treatment and that all
JAK, J
other allegations in the complaint were addressed to JFCM.
It is stated that their marriage took place on 08.12.2021 and
that a huge amount of dowry including gold and silver
articles were presented at the time of marriage.
8. Learned counsel for petitioners/accused Nos.5 to 7
invited attention of this Court to legal notice dated
09.10.2024 issued to accused No.1 and two others. It is
contended that ingredients in the complaint were never
reflected in the legal notice dated 09.10.2024 and that this
establishes the fact that the allegations levelled in the
complaint dated 11.10.2024 are baseless.
9. It is submitted that H.M.O.P.No.101 of 2024 filed in
the Court alleging that on 22.09.2024, when respondent
No.2 stayed in Karthikeya Residency in Room No.301 at
Tirumala, accused Nos.1, 3 and 7 trespassed into his room,
when he was with family members is false and it is to
overcome overt acts of respondent No.2. That in fact
respondent No.2 was with another lady and he filed the
present complaint to cover up his covert activities.
JAK, J
10. Learned counsel for respondent-State submitted that
case is under investigation and allegations levelled are of
suicidal tendencies, mental harassment and threatening
relatives with dire consequences. That all these issues need
to be gone into and investigation is necessary. It is
submitted that interference is unwarranted and
investigation be permitted to go on.
11. It is observed from record that respondent No.2
levelled various allegations against his wife, accused No.1,
and six (6) others, registered as F.I.R.No.235 of 2024.
H.M.O.P.No.101 of 2024 is pending on the file of Senior Civil
Judge at Huzurnagar for grant of divorce.
12. On 24.09.2024, F.I.R.No.1098 of 2024 came to be
registered, complainant is wife of respondent No.2.
Allegations are that respondent No.2 and his father and
mother used to harass accused No.1 physically and
mentally and that respondent No.2 used to beat her and
that respondent No.2 was never affectionate towards her. It
is further alleged that when she confronted her husband
about calls and messages of having affair with a lady and
JAK, J
that he used to beat her during night hours and tried to
neck her out of the house.
13. Cases are filed by husband and wife against each
other and their relatives. Allegations are levelled on various
counts and appear to be omnibus in nature, there are no
specific overt acts attributed to the petitioners, except
stating that they were part of the family and were involved.
14. On considering the entire factual matrix and having
perused the record, this Court is of the opinion that
presence of petitioners/accused Nos.5 to 7 in Crime No.235
of 2024 on the file of Huzurnagar Police Station, Suryapet,
can be dispensed with and is accordingly dispensed with.
The Investigating Officer is directed to proceed with the
investigation after issuing notice under Section 35(3) of
BNSS (earlier Section 41-A of Cr.P.C.) to petitioners/accused
Nos.5 to 7 and shall follow the guidelines of the Apex
Court's judgment in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and
Another. 1
(2014) 8 SCC 273
JAK, J
15. It is made clear that petitioners/accused Nos.5 to 7
shall present themselves before Investigating Officer, if their
presence is necessary for the purpose of investigation.
It is also made clear that if they do not present themselves
before the Investigating Officer, as required, this order shall
stand vacated automatically. Any observations made in this
order shall not influence the Court below while considering
or concluding the case at the time of trial.
16. With the above observations, this Criminal Petition is
disposed of.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this
criminal petition shall stand closed.
___________________________
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J
Date:03.02.2025
KH
