The High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, through The S.H.O., P.S. Tadwai, Nizamabad District (Now Kamareddy District, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad.

2. Pola Ramesh, S/o. Nagaiah, Age'.28 years, Occ: Van Driver, Rl/o. Ganesh Colony, Chinthalapudi Village and Mandal, West Godavari District, A.P. ...RespondenUCom plainanUDefacto Complainant Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings CC.No.1137 of 2021 pending on the file of the Court of the Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sathupally in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 1 oF 2022 Petition under Section _4g2 of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds ot criminit petition, the High court may be pleased to stav a, further proceedings in cc No.1 132 ot'2oir pE.oi"g;.;h" file of the court of the Addr. Judiciar rii.t crr.r Magistrate, Sathupaily incruding appearance of the petitioners, pending disposar of the main criminar petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri ch. Venkata Narayana, Advocate for the petitioners and the Mrs. s. Madhavi, Assistant pubric Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None Appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER I I 1 l I r l, /itt THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION N o.74 ot 2022 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P'C. by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in c.c.No.,l 137 0f 2021 0n the flle of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Sathupally, Hyderabad (for short 'trial Court'), pertaining to Crime No.210 of 2021 of P.S. Aswaraopet, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420,294(b),323 and 506 r/w' 34 of the lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC').

2. Heard Sri CH.Venkata Narayana, learned counsel for the petitioners and IVIrs. S.tVladhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondenlstate. No representation on behalf of respondent No.2. Perused the record.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that accused No.1 has leased out three cars from the travel business of LW-2/Bojedla Vamsi. Falsely claiming that the said cars belong to him, he obtained amounts from the de facto complainant and LW-3/Dasari Ramakrishna by mortgaging the said cars. On knowing that his car was in possession of lhe de facto complainant, the petitioner-accused No.2, who is the owner of the car, along with petitioners-accused Nos.3 to 5 went to the de facto I JI i l,r ( 2 / JS, J Crl-P.N.o.74 of 2022 ,.- complainant beat him with hands using abusive language and threatened him with dire consequences . The petitioners also tried to forcibly take away the car from the de facto complainant. Basing on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.210 of 2021 was registered against the accused and after completion of investigation, cfrarge sheet was filed before the triar court' The same was taken cognizance and numbered as C.C.No 1 137 ot 2021 for the aforesaid offences.

4. Learned counser appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 are innocent and have been falsely impricated in the case. There is no dishonest intention on the part of the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to S and they have nothing to do with the alleged offences He further submits that the petitioner-accused No.2 is the owner of the car, which was mortgaged by accused No.j with the de facto complainant. The petitioner_accused No.2 never mortgaged his vehicle to anybody or he never handed over his vehicle to anybody for the purpose of mortgage. rn fact, the petitioner-accused No.2 is the victim in the hands of accused No.1. He further submits that the incident of beating and threatening by the petitioners as alleged by the de facto comprainant in his compraint has not at a, occurred and the same is created by the de facto complainant for extracting money from the petitioners herein. Thus, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners I { i t 3 JS, J Crl.P-No.74 of 2022 5'ontheotherhand,thelearnedAssistantPublicProsecutor contended that there are specific allegations against the petitioners and the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet aresubjectmatteroftrial,andhence,thisisnotafitcasetoquashthe proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, she prayed to dismiss the petition.

6.Havingheardbothsidesandperusedthematerialonrecord,itis apparent on the face of the record that all the allegations are pointing towards accused No.1 alone and there is no averment showing the ) involvement of the petitioners-accused Nos 2 to 5 in the alleged offences' ToconstitutetheoffenceofcheatingunderSection420oflPC,itis setfled law that there shall be dishonest or fraudulent intention on the part of the accused, from the inception. ln the present case, in the entire chargesheet,nospecificroleisattributedtothepetitioners-accused Nos.2to5'IVloreover,dishonestorfraudulentintentionisnotfoundon the part of the petitioners-accused Nos'2 to 5 Since there are no descriptive particulars of the petitioners-accused Nos'2 to 5 singing' reciting, or uttering obscene songs, ballads, or words in or near a public place annoying the de facfo complainant, the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC is not made out. , { l i I I I t I I I I ,l -I I JS, J Crl.P.No.74 of 2022

7. As seen from the entire charge sheet, there is no medical record like statement of the competent Doctor or wound certificate to show that the de facto complainant suffered injuries in the hands of the petitioners- accused Nos.2 to 5. There are no specific allegations against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 as to in what mahner they threatened the respondent No 2 causing criminal intimidation. Hence, the offences under Sections 323 and 506 of IPC are also not made out.

8. Furthermore,. to prove the allegations for the offences alleged against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5, no independent witness was examined by the Police. Out of B witnesses examined, 4 are panch witnesses and one is lnvestigating Officer. The remaining witnesses i.e., LW-2/Bojedla Vamsi and LW-3iDasari Ramakrishna, who were shown as circumstantial witnesses, did not speak about the involvement of petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5. lt is apparent from the averments of the charge sheet that two cars are mortgaged with one person by name Kumbabam Saraiah. The said person by name Kumbabam Saraiah was not examined by the Police Non-examination of the.said person goes to the root of the case.

9. ln view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered optnion that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the T l, j i l i i I l I i i i 5 .rl, J Crl.P.No.74 of 2022 I petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 amounts to sheer abuse of process of the law and the same are liable to be quashed.

10. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 in C.C.No.1137 of 2021 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class lVlagistrate at Sathupally, Hyderabad. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. .) //TRUE COPY// SD/.T.JAYASREE D PUTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 a 4 The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sath upa lly The Station House Officer, Aswaraopet Police Station, Khammam District' Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] One CC to Sri Ch. Venkata Narayana, Advocate IOPUC] Two CD Copies ry-- / I \ )n 1 HE Sr4 o 16 APR zffi 2 a * oFs 1Ftd c €.O HIGH GOURT DATE D : 1 910312025 ORDER CRLP.No.74 ot 2022 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION sg..r+