P. Sridhar Vs The State Court of Telangana — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2025)

P. Sridhar Vs The State Court of Telangana — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Personal presence of the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 6 in the proceedings of C.C.No.47 of 2025 (JFCM, Parigi, Vikarabad) dispensed with, conditional upon (i) appearance through counsel on every adjournment and (ii) personal appearance as and when directed by the Court, failing which the order becomes ineffective; the Criminal Petition is disposed of with this direction and pending miscellaneous petitions (including I.A.No.2 of 2025) shall stand closed. The quashment prayer was not separately adjudicated.

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.47 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Parigi, Vikarabad, against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 6 (offences under Section 85 BNS 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961) ought to be quashed (the prayer with which the Criminal Petition was filed, not separately adjudicated in the order). +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Having regard to the submissions, and subject to the petitioners' appearance through their counsel on every adjournment and their personal appearance as and when directed by the Court, the personal presence of the petitioners in the proceedings of C.C.No.47 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate at Parigi, Vikarabad is dispensed with; it is specified that any lapse in abiding these conditions would render the order ineffective.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Telangana High Court (Hon'ble Sri Justice N. Tukaramji) - Criminal Petition No.4663 of 2025, dated 03/10/2025. Filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (short 'BNSS 2023'; cf. Section 482 Cr.P.C.) by two persons who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 6 in C.C.No.47 of 2025 (arising from Crime No.63 of 2024) on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Parigi, Vikarabad, for offences under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Though the order describes the petition as seeking quashment of the C.C. proceedings, the grievance pressed was that attendance before the trial Court on every adjournment caused severe hardship and affected employment; counsel prayed only for dispensation of personal presence. The Additional Public Prosecutor raised no specific objection but sought compulsory in-person presence at material stages. The Court dispensed with the petitioners' personal presence, subject to (i) their appearance through counsel on every adjourned date and (ii) personal appearance as and when directed by the Court, specifying that any lapse in abiding these conditions would render the order ineffective. With this direction the Criminal Petition was disposed of and pending miscellaneous petitions (including the interim stay application I.A.No.2 of 2025) were ordered closed. The question of quashing the C.C. proceedings was not adjudicated on merits.

t3217 |

oF^TELANGANA HIGH^{couRr t?+} I+E8J^rE "^" ;B','dii'H;,[H$u.nt x'r

THE^{HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICEN'TUKARAMJI}

CRIMI NAL^{PETtTIONNOI4663oF2025}

Between:

,r*, j,,ol1fr j{B-rt;til"nft ,on".,l;#,io1l'"ll,3l"JfiT'**'1i;'0rl?1??' *"

in

, ffi,ger,'-ff[:i3l#:,]g?1"?:::l*',"I?3"'-1,':?^f,Gf NOS'1^{and 2}

"'PETITIONER/ACCUSED

AND

The^{State Court of Telangana' Judicature at Hyderabad'Rep by its Public} Prosecutor

"'RESP.NDENT^No'l

, ,,1{t1'fjl?lI3#3ifli|[T-13f;:,e'iiiL?:::e'i,is:."i$ii..,?"Jj3'#.?;.o.

...RESPONDENT^{NO.2'DEFACTOCOMPLAINANT'}

Petition^{under Section4BZ ol Ct"P C'l5:2"BNSS praying that in the} :l',ff r',istT:;t1",1Jldimtirrui;qii't',"tf#:f'$;g:?di Ln#"""";:^{6iti z6z+} '" Jffi"l'3":l#g; il-'J':i;ii"";'d^{.;iono a.no a ot} Vi"t"u"'o^t"ith" 9fl:1"r"nt such other rerief or *'i"t. *^{tnit court maydeem fit} D.P.^{Act, 1961 and to gr} ;"; ;;;";^{il the circumstancesor the case'}

l.A. NO:^20F2025

Petition^{under Section 482 oI Cr.P.C I 528of BNSS Prayingthat in the} circumstances^{stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the} High^{CourtmaY bePleased to STAY of all furtherProceedings in C.C.N o.47 ol} ection³ 2025^{in CrimeNo' 63 ol 2024onthe file of JudicialFirstClass Mag istrate at} Parigi,^{Vikarabad forthe offencesunder Section85 .BNS of 2023 and S} and^{4of D.P.Act, 1961 pending disposalof the Crimin al Petition}

This P,,:titic n coming on for hearing,upon pe rr.lsrnrl th:: Memorandum of Grounds of C.irninal petition a nd upon hearing the argurnents of Sri RApOLU BHASKAR ,l,dvor:ate for the Petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Add itirna I public prose cutor on behalf of the Respondr,rnt No.1 and None appeared for the tsspendsng Al o.2. The Court made the following: ORDER

THE^{HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N' TUKARAMJI} PETI^TIONNo.4663 of 2025 cRl MIN^AL

ORDER:

This^{Criminal Petitionis filed under Section528 of Bharatiya} Nagarik^{Suraksha Sanhita'2023 (tor short 'BNSS' 2023') seeking} quashment^{of the proceedingsin C'C No'47ol 2025 on the 'file of} learned^{JudicialFirstClass Magistrate at Parigi'Vikarabad' agahstthe} "r petitioners/accused^{Nos'1 and 6'}

Heard^{Ms T'Keerthi Chandana' learned counselrepresenting} Mr.Rapolu^{Bhaskar' learned counsel for petitioners and Mr'Jithender} Rao^{Veeramalla, learned AdditionalPublic Prosecutor appearing for} the resPondent^{No'1 -State'}

The^{petitionersare arrayed as accusedNos'1 and 6 in} C.C.No.47^{of 2025 for the offences underSection85 of Bharatiya} Nyaya^Sanhita ,2023^{and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowryand Prohibition} Act, 1961.

( (

Learned^{counsel for the petitioners would submit that though the} petitioners are^{resolved to face the proceedings' their presencebefore} the trial Court^{on each adjournmentis causing severe hardsnipano} effecting their employment'^{Therefore, prayed for dispensing their} personal presence unless it is required^{for the proceedingsand such} . direction would redress^{their grievance.}

2

I

Learnel Ad iitional Public Prosecutor submits thal the're is no specific objectir:n^1c,r the^prayer, however^{pleaded for a directionfor in} person presence of the petitioners in the material^stage:,; of^the proceed ings.

Having rr:c :rrd to the submissions,^{subject tc the I pe titioners'} appearance thloug h their counsel^{on every adjournment and the} petitioners' pr:r'i;oretl appearance as and when^{directed by tl-re Court,} the personal^p-esence of the^{petitioners' in the proceedingsof the} C.C.No.47 of 2'.)2! on the file^{of learned Judicial First Clas;s Magistrate} at Parigi, Vik;arabzrl,^{is dispensedwith. Additionally it is s'pecifiedthat} anylapseinarbicirgtheaboveconditionswouldrendt:rttisorder ineffective.

7 . With this dir,::tion,^{this Criminal Petition is disposed of}

Miscellarre.l.lspetitions,pendingifany,shallstandt;lost,rd.

SD/-M.OIiMAN^{ALI BAIG} ASSISTANT^FIEGISTRAR

\

To,

: .-:=: -.-\ ..,SEI]TIC)N OFFICER 0\i\l

//TRUE^COPY/'

The^{JudiciaF irril rllassMagistrate at Parigi' Vikarabad}

2.^{The Station House Officer'WPS Police StationVikarabarj' Vi<aracad District} 3.^{One CC to Sill ?APOLU BHASKAR Advocate[OPUCI} 4 Two CCs^{to tl-re' rublic Prosecutor'High Courtfor the Stat':of felanganaat} Hyderabad^{lllJ l l}

5.^{TwoCD CoPer;}

Mah/PSL

\

s

HIGH COI.,'RT

DATED:03 t0Lt2OZs

ORDER

CRLP.No.46€| 3 of 2O2S

)
:::-..
o s 1tlE l
!/(\ <br>,)\
il .)
l !-) 2 4 JUN 206 r:- "
*

Criminal pertition is dispose of
a-i't

*n