Telangana High Court
Dr. Faheem Mohiuddin Khan vs State Of Telangana on 11 July, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3631 of 2025
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.9319 of 2021 on the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'DP Act').
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 16.10.2015 respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complainant against the petitioners stating that her marriage was performed on 10.08.2013 as per Muslim customs and traditions with petitioner No.1. She alleged that from the very beginning of the marriage, she was subjected to physical and mental harassment by her husband, mother-in-law, and father-in-law, both in Jeddah (Saudi Arabia) and Hyderabad, in connection with demands for additional dowry in the form of money, gold, and electronic items. Her father had already 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.3631 of 2025 given cash of Rs.25,00,000/-, along with gold and diamond jewellery, expensive clothes, and electronic items at the time of marriage. She further stated that her husband and mother-in-law poured hot water on her several times while they were in Jeddah. This harassment was brought to the notice of her father, who lodged a complaint with the Consulate General in Jeddah on 29.04.2015.
3. She further alleged that her father-in-law, Dr. Lateef Mohiuddin Khan, also used to beat, harass, and mentally torture her. During her pregnancy, she was made to do household work and was not given proper care. Her salary was taken away by the in-laws. Despite having two children, her in-laws insisted that the expenses for the children be borne by her parents. When she became pregnant with her second child, the harassment escalated. Her husband and in- laws decided to send her to Hyderabad for delivery but demanded that her parents bear the cost of the air tickets. They also made baseless allegations about her character and spread defamatory messages among relatives. 3
SKS,J Crl.P.No.3631 of 2025
4. On 12.10.2015, when her husband arrived in Hyderabad, he called her to the airport along with the children. There, he threatened her and picked an argument about the furniture. On 15.10.2015, when the furniture was being assembled, her husband physically assaulted her by beating her with hands and legs. Both her husband and mother-in-law abused her in filthy language and again demanded additional dowry in the form of gold, a laptop, and a share in her parental property. Her mother-in-law, Naheed Afroz, took away her phone and did not allow her to contact her parents. They also abused her parents. Subsequently, her husband and mother-in-law attempted to assault her father and forcibly evicted him from the house located at Janaki Nagar. They also snatched both children from her. When she tried to get the children back, they shouted at her and humiliated her further.
5. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.392 of 2015 of Golconda Police Station, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act and after completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet, vide C.C.No.9319 of 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.3631 of 2025 2021 before the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present criminal petition to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
6. Heard Sri TCK Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - State and Sri H. Sudhakar Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 - de facto complainant.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the entire criminal proceedings initiated by the de facto complainant are false, malicious, and an abuse of the process of law and that the marriage between petitioner No.1 and the de facto complainant was performed on 10.08.2013, and the couple was blessed with two sons. However, soon after marriage, the de facto complainant began quarrelling on trivial issues, deserted the petitioner No.1 without any justifiable reason, and foisted multiple false criminal cases against him and his family. He further submitted that under police 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.3631 of 2025 pressure, she extorted money and eventually obtained a divorce, following which she remarried and is now living with her second husband. Despite this, she continues to harass the petitioners by initiating one proceeding after another.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the FIR and charge sheet were registered without conducting any preliminary inquiry or offering the petitioners an opportunity to be heard, and that the essential ingredients of Section 498- A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of DP Act are not made out against them. He further contended that the allegations are general, vague, and lack specific attribution to either petitioner No.1 or petitioner No.2 and that the de facto complainant did not come to the Court with clean hands and has used the legal process as a tool for personal vendetta and unlawful financial gain. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners by allowing this criminal petition.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit denying the averments made by the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that the present 6 SKS,J Crl.P.No.3631 of 2025 petition is wholly devoid of merit and is a clear attempt by the petitioners to delay the due process of law and escape criminal liability for the grave acts of cruelty and dowry harassment committed against the respondent and that the grounds raised by the petitioners are vague, self-serving, and do not satisfy the settled principles under which the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS may be exercised. He further submitted that respondent No.2 has made specific and serious allegations of continuous physical and mental abuse, both in India and abroad, as well as demands for additional dowry.
10. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that the allegations are not bald or general but are supported by material placed on record, including a charge sheet that establishes a prima facie case warranting trial and that the petitioners are attempting to distort the facts by introducing irrelevant and unverified claims to divert attention from the real issues, and are trying to substitute trial proceedings with adjudication before this Court, which is impermissible under law. He further contended that the delay in the trial was largely due to the non-cooperation of the petitioners and 7 SKS,J Crl.P.No.3631 of 2025 evasive conduct, including non-appearance, as evidenced by issuance of NBW against one of the petitioners. The remarriage of respondent No.2 is irrelevant to the pending criminal proceedings, and does not negate the cruelty suffered by her during the subsistence of the marriage.
11. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court in Kaptan Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others 1, K. Sankara Rao v. State of AP and Others 2 , and D. Surender Reddy v. State of A.P 3. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
12. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations leveled against the petitioners are serious in nature, which requires trial. At this stage, quashing of proceedings against the petitioners does not arise and therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.
1 2021 3 ACR 2842 2 2024 0 APHC 34807 3 2002 1 ALD (Cri) 351 8 SKS,J Crl.P.No.3631 of 2025
13. In light of the submissions advanced by both the learned counsel and on perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the core allegations pertain to acts of harassment and dowry demands allegedly committed by petitioner No.1/husband, his mother, and father during the subsistence of the marital relationship with respondent No.2. The complaint narrates incidents of both physical and mental cruelty, specific to certain dates and circumstances, some of which allegedly took place in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, and Hyderabad. These allegations against petitioner No.1 are not only serious in nature but also supported by the charge sheet and prima facie disclose the ingredients of the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act. Therefore, these allegations require full-fledged trial and adjudication before the competent Court.
14. At this stage, it is imperative to note the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana and another 4 , wherein in paragraph No.35, it is held as follows:
4
Criminal Appeal No. 2379 of 2024 9 SKS,J Crl.P.No.3631 of 2025 "35. In one of the recent pronouncements of this Court in Mahmood Ali and Ors vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 950, authored by one of us (J.B. Pardiwala, j.), the legal principle applicable apropos Section 482 of the Cr.P.C was examined. Therein, it was observed that when an accused comes before the High Court, invoking either the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.c or the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed, essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances, the High Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. It was further observed that it will not be enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not as, in frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection, to try and read between the lines."
15. However, with respect to petitioner No.2, who is stated to be the mother of petitioner No.1, appears that the 10 SKS,J Crl.P.No.3631 of 2025 allegations are general and omnibus in nature. There are no specific overt acts attributed to petitioner No.2 apart from vague allegations that she instigated petitioner No.1 and occasionally participated in verbal abuse. No particular incident or evidence is placed on record that clearly connects petitioner No.2 with the specific allegations of cruelty or unlawful dowry demands. In fact, there is no material to suggest that petitioner No.2 was continuously residing with the couple or played an active role in the matrimonial discord.
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand 5 , has cautioned against roping in family members residing separately on the basis of vague and general allegations. Similarly, in Achin Gupta (cited supra) and Mahmood Ali (cited supra), it has been held that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS), the High Court must scrutinize not just the FIR and complaint, but also attending circumstances to determine if the prosecution is manifestly vexatious or frivolous. In the present case, even if the allegations in the complaint are taken at face value, they do not disclose specific 5 (2010) 7 SCC 667 11 SKS,J Crl.P.No.3631 of 2025 or grave acts attributable to petitioner No.2 which warrant her prosecution. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against petitioner No.2 is nothing but abuse of process of law. On the other hand, as there are seriousness and specificity of allegations against petitioner No.1, the proceedings insofar as he is concerned must continue to trial.
17. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed in part and the proceedings against the petitioner No.2 in C.C.No.9319 of 2021 on the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed. Further, the prosecution is directed to proceed with the case against petitioner No.1/accused No.1.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 11.07.2025 SAI 12 SKS,J Crl.P.No.3631 of 2025 03 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3631 of 2025 Date: 11.07.2025 SAI