1. Heard Sri A.P.Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Nooty Vasishta Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and perused the record.

2. This criminal petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.209 of 2026 in Crime No.273 of 2025 on the file of learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad.

3. The case against the petitioner, as per the charge sheet, is for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 115(2) and 352 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The crime was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by respondent No.3 (de facto complainant), who is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner.

Factual Matrix

4. The prosecution case originates from a complaint lodged by respondent No.3/de facto complainant on 23.10.2025 before the Station House Officer, Women Police Station, IT Corridor, Cyberabad, on the basis of which, crime No.273 of 2025 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 115(2) and 325 of BNS. The gravamen of the allegations, as reflected in the charge sheet, is that the petitioner and respondent No.3 got married on 19.07.2006 at Arya Samaj, Bowenpally. According to the prosecution, the petitioner and respondent No.3 were colleagues in a private company at Hyderabad and, after developing acquaintance, contracted love marriage and started residing at the petitioner's parental house situated at HUDA Heights, MLA Colony, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, and out of their wedlock, on 03.09.2012, they were blessed with a son, namely, Nirvaan Reddy Koduri.

5. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.10.2025, respondent No.3 lodged a complaint before the Women Police Station, IT Corridor, Cyberabad alleging that ever since the marriage, the petitioner had been subjecting her to physical, mental, emotional, sexual and economic abuse. It is alleged that the petitioner repeatedly assaulted her including repeated acts of beating, slapping, kicking, punching, striking her with a belt, banging her head against a wall and kicking her in the chest while she was breastfeeding the infant child. On several occasions, forcibly subjected her to a sexual act in the year 2011, compelled her to raise personal loans, clear the petitioner’s credit card dues, bear substantial household and domestic expenses, pay insurance premiums in his name and mortgage her gold ornaments to discharge his liabilities. Respondent No.3 also alleged that the petitioner maintained an extramarital relationship with a maid, named, Divya, during the years 2021-2022, and lastly, it is alleged that the petitioner has assaulted her on 21.10.2025 by striking with a tissue holder, choking her and attempting to damage the household articles, which culminated in lodging of the present complaint.

6. Based on the said complaint, crime No.273 of 2025 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 115(2) and 352 of the BNS. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer examined respondent No.3 (L.W.1), her mother (L.W.2), father (L.W.3), cook (L.W.4), friend (L.W.5) and neighbour (L.W.6), respectively, visited and inspected the scene of offence and recorded their statements. The petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer on 05.11.2025. Thereafter, notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS was issued to him. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet dated 06.11.2025 was filed, which was taken on file as C.C.No.209 of 2026 on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad.

7. It is also borne out from the record that respondent No.3 instituted F.C.O.P.No.14 of 2026 before the learned II Additional District Judge-cum-Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of cruelty. Respondent No.3 also filed an application viz., I.A.No.113 of 2026 seeking an injunction restraining the petitioner from visiting the house of respondent No.3 and harassing her. By order dated 23.01.2026, the Family Court at Kukatpally restrained the petitioner from visiting the house of respondent No.3 and creating nuisance in and around the house till 23.02.2026 and the said order was subsequently extended. The petitioner, conversely, relies upon a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) purportedly executed between the petitioner and respondent No.3 in the year 2017. This document, stated to be transmitted as an attachment via e-mail on 27.11.2005, reportedly contains the terms of their separation, child custody and mutual financial obligations.

Submissions on behalf of the petitioner

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner advanced the following submissions:

               i. That the registration of FIR and the filing of charge sheet are a clear abuse of the process of law. It is contended that the FIR was registered in a mechanical manner without conducting any preliminary enquiry and that the allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence.

               ii. That the dispute between the parties is purely matrimonial in nature and has been given a criminal colour with an ulterior motive to harass the petitioner and evict him from the matrimonial home. It is further contended that the allegations are inherently improbable, particularly the claim of respondent No.3 that she incurred expenditure of several lakhs of rupees despite drawing a monthly salary of about Rs.30,000/-.

               iii. That the petitioner had made substantial financial contributions towards the purchase of the flat and has been bearing the educational expenses, insurance premiums and other expenses of the minor child. It is further submitted that the complaint itself indicates that respondent No.3 was unwilling to lead a conjugal life, thereby causing mental harassment to the petitioner.

               iv. That the statements of L.Ws.2 to 6 are unreliable as L.Ws.2 and 3 are the parents of respondent No.3, L.W.4 is the cook, L.W.5 is her close friend and L.W.6, a neighbour, is stated to have given his statement under police pressure.

               v. That the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) executed between the parties in the year 2017 evidences an amicable settlement between them and that the continuation of the criminal proceedings is actuated by mala fides and intended only to wreak vengeance against the petitioner.

Submissions on behalf of respondent No.3

9. The learned counsel for respondent No.3, opposed the petition and has advanced the following submissions:

               i) That the petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands by suppressing material facts relating to marriage and the financial contributions made by respondent No.3. It is contended that the allegations in the complaint disclose the commission of cognizable offences and, therefore, the police rightly registered the FIR and, upon conducting a thorough investigation, filed the charge sheet.

               ii) That the complaint contains specific and detailed allegations supported by material particulars and that the acts complained of constitute continuing matrimonial cruelty. Mere delay in lodging the complaint, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is neither unusual nor fatal to the prosecution.

               iii) That the statements of L.Ws.4 and 6, who are independent witnesses, as well as those of L.Ws.2 and 3, cannot be discarded at the threshold merely on the ground that some of them are related to respondent No.3.

               iv) That the petitioner had not made any financial contribution towards the family and that respondent No.3 alone met the household expenses, purchased the flat from her own earnings and has been bearing the expenses of the minor child. It is further submitted that the interim order passed by the Family Court at Kukatpally restraining the petitioner from entering the matrimonial home lends prima facie support to the case of respondent No.3.

               v) That the criminal proceedings are neither malicious nor an abuse of process. The petitioner has every opportunity to establish his defence before the trial Court and, therefore, the present Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed.

10. I have taken note of the respective submissions urged and the material on record.

Consideration by this Court

11. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC, is extraordinary in nature and is required to be exercised sparingly, with great circumspection, and only to prevent abuse of the process of law or to secure the ends of justice. At the stage of considering a petition for quashing, this Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous appreciation of the evidence or adjudicate disputed questions of fact. Interference would be warranted only where the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, fail to disclose the commission of any offence; or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides; or where their continuance would amount to an abuse of the process of law. In the considered opinion of this Court, the present case does not fall within any of the recognised categories warranting the exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction.

12. A plain reading of the complaint and the material collected during the course of investigation discloses specific allegations of repeated physical assault, sexual abuse, financial exploitation, emotional abuse, and a subsequent incident of assault alleged to have occurred on 21.10.2025. The charge sheet also contains statements of witnesses recorded during the course of investigation in support of the prosecution case. At this stage, the allegations are required to be accepted at their face value without embarking upon an enquiry into their truthfulness. If so accepted, they prima facie disclose the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 85, 115(2) and 352 of the BNS. Thus, it cannot be held that no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner.

13. It is pertinent to note that the reliance placed by the petitioner upon the MoU dated 2017 does not advance his case, for the following reasons:

               i) The material placed before this Court indicates that the document remained at the stage of a draft, accompanied by an e-mail requesting review and confirmation, and there is no material to demonstrate that it was duly executed by both parties.

               ii) Even assuming that such document had been executed, a private arrangement between the parties cannot extinguish criminal liability in respect of offences otherwise disclosed by the complaint.

               iii) The allegations forming the subject matter of the present prosecution include a specific incident alleged to have occurred on 21.10.2025, long after the said document came into existence.

               iv) The existence of the MoU indicates that matrimonial discord had arisen between the parties by 2017. Whether its recitals support the case of either party is a matter to be examined during trial and not in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS.

14. The pendency of matrimonial proceedings between the parties, including the F.C.O.P.No.14 of 2026 and the interlocutory proceedings pending before the Family Court do not constitute a legal bar to the continuation of the criminal prosecution. Civil and criminal proceedings operate in distinct spheres and may proceed simultaneously where the facts disclose both civil consequences and criminal liability. The interim orders passed by the Family Court are confined to the adjudication of civil rights and obligations between the parties and cannot be construed as determinative of the criminal liability alleged against the petitioner.

15. The contention that the FIR is liable to be quashed for want of a preliminary enquiry is equally untenable. Where the information furnished to the police prima facie discloses the commission of cognizable offences, the investigating agency is under a statutory obligation to register the FIR and proceed with the investigation in accordance with law. In the present case, the complaint disclosed allegations constituting cognizable offences, including a specific allegation relating to an incident immediately preceding the registration of the crime. Consequently, the registration of the crime without a preliminary enquiry does not vitiate the prosecution.

16. Further, the contention that the complainant's financial claims are inherently improbable having regard to her salary likewise raises disputed questions of fact. The complainant has furnished an explanation regarding the manner in which she allegedly incurred such expenditure, including by availing loans and credit facilities. The correctness or otherwise of such assertions can only be determined upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence during trial. Such disputed factual issues are beyond the permissible scope of enquiry under Section 528 BNSS.

17. The petitioner's assertion that he substantially contributed towards the purchase of the residential flat and has continuously borne the educational and other expenses of the child is specifically disputed by respondent No.3. These rival claims involve disputed questions of fact requiring appreciation of evidence. Upon completion of investigation, the investigating agency has filed the charge sheet on being prima facie satisfied that sufficient material exists to proceed against the petitioner. In this regard, this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, cannot undertake a re-appreciation of such material as though exercising appellate jurisdiction over the investigation.

18. The plea that the criminal proceedings have been initiated solely with an ulterior motive also does not merit acceptance at this stage. The mere fact that the complaint has been lodged after several years of marriage is not, by itself, sufficient to infer mala fides, particularly when the allegations relate to continuous matrimonial cruelty and the complainant has furnished an explanation for the delay by referring to repeated attempts at reconciliation, social stigma, fear and concern for the welfare of the child. The complainant has not chosen to implicate the petitioner's relatives, and the institution of matrimonial proceedings seeking divorce and other consequential reliefs cannot render the criminal prosecution mala fide. In the absence of any unimpeachable material demonstrating that the prosecution has been maliciously instituted or constitutes an abuse of the process of law, this Court finds no justification to invoke its inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings.

19. It is to be noted that the charge sheet records that the petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation and extended cooperation. It also contains a reference to an alleged statement made by the petitioner before the Investigating Officer. However, the evidentiary value and admissibility of any such statement are matters governed by the law of evidence and cannot be examined while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS. At this stage, this Court is only required to ascertain whether the material collected during investigation prima facie discloses the commission of cognizable offences warranting a trial.

20. It is pertinent to note that the allegations in the complaint disclose a continuous course of conduct extending from 2006 to 2025. The mere fact that some of the alleged incidents pertain to an earlier period does not, by itself, render the prosecution stale or liable to be quashed, particularly when the complaint also refers to a specific incident of assault alleged to have occurred on 21.10.2025. Therefore, prima facie, the allegations indicate that the acts complained of continued up to the filing of the complaint and cannot be rejected solely on the ground of delay or the period over which they are alleged to have occurred.

Conclusion

21. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the allegations contained in the complaint, the FIR No.273 of 2025 and the material collected during investigation, taken at their face value, prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences punishable under Sections 85, 115(2) and 352 of the BNS. The grounds urged by the petitioner, including those relating to the MoU, the pendency of F.C.O.P.No.14 of 2026, the absence of a preliminary enquiry, the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, the financial transactions between the parties and the plea of mala fides, involve disputed questions of fact requiring appreciation of evidence and, therefore, do not fall within the limited scope of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, so as to warrant quashing of the criminal proceedings.

22. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. The trial Court shall proceed with C.C.No.209 of 2026 in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made in this order, which are confined to the adjudication of the present Criminal Petition.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed.