[ 3303 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO GRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12622 OF 2026 Between: 1. Mathi Padmakumari, Wo. Kamalakara Rao, Age. 56 Years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H.No. 201335-17, Sri Krishna Nagar, Near DEO Office, Machilipatnam, Chilakalapudi (Rural),Krishna District, AP-52't 002. 2. Simhadri Venkalalakshmi @ Bebamma, W/o. Sesnu Babu, Age. 55 Years, Occ. Housewife, Rl/o. H.No. 1/3, Kaldindi Road, Korukollu, Krishna District, AP-521343. 3. Vijaya Tej Mathi, S/o. Kamalakara Rao Mathi, Age. 38 Years, Occ. pvt. Employee, Ri/o. H.No. 201335-17, Near DEO Office, Srikrishna Nagar, Chilakalapudi, Krishna District, AP-521 002. ...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No.2 to 4 AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High court at Hyderabad, Hyderabad. pvt. 2. Smt.Thota Dhanalakshmi, W/o. Venkatesh Mathi, Aged 34 Years, Occ. Job, R/o. Flat No. G-6, Balaji, Awas Pragathi Nagar, Bachupally, Medchal Malkajgiri District. ,..RESPONDENTS/COM PLAINANTS Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records pertaining to Cr No. 687 of 2026 pending on the file of Bachupally Police Station quash the same in the interest of justice. 2 l.A. NO: 2OF 2026

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including arrest of the petitioners herein in Cr No. 687 of 2026 pending on the file of Bachupally Police Station, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition before this Hon'ble Court. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argumenls of Sri JAYSURYA VISHNU VARDHAN, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER HIGH COURT FOR'I'HE STATE OF 1-EL4]VGA.IVA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SR.EENTVAS RAO CRJMINAL PETITION No. 12622 of 2O26 DATE: 11.08.2026 Between : Mathi Padmakumari and trvo others ....Petitioner,/Accused Nos.2 to .l ANI) The State of l'elangana and another ..Respondents :ORDER:

This criminal petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 seeking to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.687 of 2026 ol' Bachupally' Police Station, Cy'berabad, registered for the offences under Sections 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,'2023 (for short, 'the BNS') and Sections li and .{ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. '2. Heard NIr. B. Nlallcsh Yadar', learned counsel representing andNIr. J. Vishnu Vardhan, learnr:d counsel for the petitioner, NIr. .lithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.I State. With their consent, the criminal petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. 3. Learned counsel for thc petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not cornmitted any offence and have been falsely implicated in the prescnt crime only on the ground that petitioncr No.I is the mother, petilioner No..l is thc brother of accused No.l, and petitioner No.2 is the sistcr of petitioner No.l by making l

omnibus allegations, though the petitioners never harassed respondcnt \o.2 at an) point of time. Further respondent No.2 never lived nrth the petitioners and the entire allegations are le'ellecl agarnst accrrst'cl \o.1. IIe Iurther submitted that the offences alleged against the p('titloner are punishable r.r,lth imprisonment of less than se\ en ).ears. l lorvevcr, l he lnvesligating Officer, wlthout following the mandatorl procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhtta, 202.1 (for shorl, ,BNSS,), the guidelines issued b1' the Aper Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar,, is proceeding \\ilh the inr,cstigation and the same is r:ontrary to lalv. 1. Per contra, Iearned ..\ssistant pubhc prosecutor submitted that there arc specific allcgations levclled against the petitioners in the con'rplaint rcg;rrding harassment and demand for additional dowry. The said a)legations artract the ingredients of the offences under Sections 8 5 o f the BNS and Sections .i and zl of the D.p. .{ct. Ho* er er, as the imprisonment prescribed lor the offences levelled against the petitioncr is less than seven ]iears, the Investigating Officer has alreadl sen'cd a notice under Sectron 35(3) of the Bl,lSS on accused \o. I o, 28.07.2026 and the Investigating Officer will follorv the rerl'sante lrroceclure in respect of the petitioners. Horvever, the pelirioners havr' becn avoiding receiving the notice uncler Section r(l0l t )s sctc t7_r 3

35(3) of the BNSS and have not been cooperating with the investigation from the registration of the crime. petitioners, by way of reply, submitted 5. Learned counsel for the that the petitioners i{ill cooperate \,r'ith the investigation. 6. Havrng considered the rrval submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the offences levelled against tlle petitioners arise out of a matrimonial dispute and are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. Even according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the Investigating Officer intends to lollow the due procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the BNSS. 7. Hence, the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on or before 31.08.2026, and on such appearance, the Investigating Officer is directed to issue notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS and follow the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar supra. B. It is needless to mention lhat the petitioners are entitled to put forth their grievancc upon reccipt of the notice under Section 3S(3) of the BNSS and are also entitled to submit the documents, if any, which are in their possession. .l Criminal Petition is 9. Sub,jecr to the above directions, the disposed of' \lisccllaneous applications, pending if an)', shall stand closed. SD/. C' DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR iTTRUE COPY/I ,.,'' SECTION OFFICER To,

1'ThePrl,JuniorCivilJudgecumXlAddl.MetropolitanMagistrateKukatpally' Cyberabad 2. The Statron House Officer, Police Station, Bachupally, Cyberabad 3.TwoCCstoPublicProsecutor,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat Hyderabad (OUT) +, ONE CC tO SRI JAYSURYA VISHNU VARDHAN AdVOCAIE [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies TPI(GNK HIGH COURT DATED: 1110812026 ORDER CRLP.No.12622 of 202 CRIMINAL PETITION DISPOSED OF IS -\6

[ 3303 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO GRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12622 OF 2026 Between: 1. Mathi Padmakumari, Wo. Kamalakara Rao, Age. 56 Years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H.No. 201335-17, Sri Krishna Nagar, Near DEO Office, Machilipatnam, Chilakalapudi (Rural),Krishna District, AP-52't 002. 2. Simhadri Venkalalakshmi @ Bebamma, W/o. Sesnu Babu, Age. 55 Years, Occ. Housewife, Rl/o. H.No. 1/3, Kaldindi Road, Korukollu, Krishna District, AP-521343. 3. Vijaya Tej Mathi, S/o. Kamalakara Rao Mathi, Age. 38 Years, Occ. pvt. Employee, Ri/o. H.No. 201335-17, Near DEO Office, Srikrishna Nagar, Chilakalapudi, Krishna District, AP-521 002. ...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No.2 to 4 AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High court at Hyderabad, Hyderabad. pvt. 2. Smt.Thota Dhanalakshmi, W/o. Venkatesh Mathi, Aged 34 Years, Occ. Job, R/o. Flat No. G-6, Balaji, Awas Pragathi Nagar, Bachupally, Medchal Malkajgiri District. ,..RESPONDENTS/COM PLAINANTS Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records pertaining to Cr No. 687 of 2026 pending on the file of Bachupally Police Station quash the same in the interest of justice. 2 l.A. NO: 2OF 2026

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including arrest of the petitioners herein in Cr No. 687 of 2026 pending on the file of Bachupally Police Station, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition before this Hon'ble Court. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argumenls of Sri JAYSURYA VISHNU VARDHAN, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER HIGH COURT FOR'I'HE STATE OF 1-EL4]VGA.IVA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SR.EENTVAS RAO CRJMINAL PETITION No. 12622 of 2O26 DATE: 11.08.2026 Between : Mathi Padmakumari and trvo others ....Petitioner,/Accused Nos.2 to .l ANI) The State of l'elangana and another ..Respondents :ORDER:

This criminal petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 seeking to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.687 of 2026 ol' Bachupally' Police Station, Cy'berabad, registered for the offences under Sections 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,'2023 (for short, 'the BNS') and Sections li and .{ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. '2. Heard NIr. B. Nlallcsh Yadar', learned counsel representing andNIr. J. Vishnu Vardhan, learnr:d counsel for the petitioner, NIr. .lithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.I State. With their consent, the criminal petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. 3. Learned counsel for thc petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not cornmitted any offence and have been falsely implicated in the prescnt crime only on the ground that petitioncr No.I is the mother, petilioner No..l is thc brother of accused No.l, and petitioner No.2 is the sistcr of petitioner No.l by making l

omnibus allegations, though the petitioners never harassed respondcnt \o.2 at an) point of time. Further respondent No.2 never lived nrth the petitioners and the entire allegations are le'ellecl agarnst accrrst'cl \o.1. IIe Iurther submitted that the offences alleged against the p('titloner are punishable r.r,lth imprisonment of less than se\ en ).ears. l lorvevcr, l he lnvesligating Officer, wlthout following the mandatorl procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhtta, 202.1 (for shorl, ,BNSS,), the guidelines issued b1' the Aper Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar,, is proceeding \\ilh the inr,cstigation and the same is r:ontrary to lalv. 1. Per contra, Iearned ..\ssistant pubhc prosecutor submitted that there arc specific allcgations levclled against the petitioners in the con'rplaint rcg;rrding harassment and demand for additional dowry. The said a)legations artract the ingredients of the offences under Sections 8 5 o f the BNS and Sections .i and zl of the D.p. .{ct. Ho* er er, as the imprisonment prescribed lor the offences levelled against the petitioncr is less than seven ]iears, the Investigating Officer has alreadl sen'cd a notice under Sectron 35(3) of the Bl,lSS on accused \o. I o, 28.07.2026 and the Investigating Officer will follorv the rerl'sante lrroceclure in respect of the petitioners. Horvever, the pelirioners havr' becn avoiding receiving the notice uncler Section r(l0l t )s sctc t7_r 3

35(3) of the BNSS and have not been cooperating with the investigation from the registration of the crime. petitioners, by way of reply, submitted 5. Learned counsel for the that the petitioners i{ill cooperate \,r'ith the investigation. 6. Havrng considered the rrval submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the offences levelled against tlle petitioners arise out of a matrimonial dispute and are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. Even according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the Investigating Officer intends to lollow the due procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the BNSS. 7. Hence, the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on or before 31.08.2026, and on such appearance, the Investigating Officer is directed to issue notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS and follow the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar supra. B. It is needless to mention lhat the petitioners are entitled to put forth their grievancc upon reccipt of the notice under Section 3S(3) of the BNSS and are also entitled to submit the documents, if any, which are in their possession. .l Criminal Petition is 9. Sub,jecr to the above directions, the disposed of' \lisccllaneous applications, pending if an)', shall stand closed. SD/. C' DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR iTTRUE COPY/I ,.,'' SECTION OFFICER To,

1'ThePrl,JuniorCivilJudgecumXlAddl.MetropolitanMagistrateKukatpally' Cyberabad 2. The Statron House Officer, Police Station, Bachupally, Cyberabad 3.TwoCCstoPublicProsecutor,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat Hyderabad (OUT) +, ONE CC tO SRI JAYSURYA VISHNU VARDHAN AdVOCAIE [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies TPI(GNK HIGH COURT DATED: 1110812026 ORDER CRLP.No.12622 of 202 CRIMINAL PETITION DISPOSED OF IS -\6