A. Laxmi & Anr. vs The State Of Telangana & Anr.

This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (for short 'the BNSS') by the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.704 of 2026 of Alwal Police Station, Medchal-Malkajgiri, registered for the offence punishable under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for short 'the BNS') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'DP Act').

Heard Mr. G.V.S.Nagesh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1.

With their consent, the criminal petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed the alleged offences and have been falsely implicated in the present case only on the ground that petitioners are the mother and sister of accused No.1. Respondent No.2 voluntarily left the matrimonial house of accused No.1. At no point of time, the petitioners have harassed or abused respondent No.2 for additional dowry. He further submitted that accused No.1 filed F.C.O.P.No.309 of 2026 before the Additional District Judge-cum-Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, at Kukatpally, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. After receiving the summons in the said case, respondent No.2 filed the present complaint by making omnibus allegations. Hence the continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse of process of law. He further submitted that the offences levelled against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. The Investigating Officer, without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') and without following the guidelines formulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar^{11.(2014) 8 SCC 273}, is proceeding further in the matter and the same is contrary to law.

Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations levelled in the complaint about the harassment made by the petitioners against respondent No.2. Whether the allegations levelled against the petitioners are true or not, the same has to be revealed during the course of investigation and the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashment of proceedings against them at threshold, especially when the investigation is under progress. He further submitted that, since the offences leveled against petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, the Investigating Officer will follow the due procedure as contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and also the guidelines formulated by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra).

Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the offences levelled against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. Even according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the Investigating Officer wants to follow the due procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the 35(3) of the BNSS.

In view of the same, the Investigating Officer is directed to follow the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the BNSS, and also the guidelines formulated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra) in respect of petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 and the petitioners shall cooperate with the investigation. It is needless to mention that the petitioners are entitled to submit reply to the notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS by raising all the pleas which are available to them and they are also entitled to submit the documents, if any, which are in their custody, to the Investigating Officer.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.