The High Court · 2025

2. Sri. tvlanoj Kumar Lillare, S/o Ram Raj Lillare, aged 26 years, Occpn. Labour, R/o H.No. 2-2-4891C, Burju Galli, Amberpet, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P -C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the Htgh Court may be pleased to quash the prosecution against the petitione r/accused No. 2 in C.C.No 1991'1 of 2019, on the file of the Learned lV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, on a FIR of the Respondent no.2 bearing No. 259 of 2019 dated 13.07.2019 A. NO: 1 OF 2024 t. 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 stay all further proceedings in C.C No. 1991 1 of 2019, on the file of the Learned lV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad including the dispensing of the presence of the petitioner/Accused No. 2 This Petition comrng on for hearing, upon perusing he Memorandum of Grounds of Clmrnal Petition and upon hearing the argur ents of Sri Aadesh Varma ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri M. Ramachandra leddy, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana on behalf of t re Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2 The Court made the following: ORDER ,@@z , // ,l THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.377 of 2024 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner-accused No.2 seeking to quash the proceedings against him rn C.C.No.1991 1 of 2019 on the file of the learned lV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, registered for the offence under Section 304-4 of IPC

2. Heard Mr. Aadesh Varma, learned counsel for the petitioner and lVlr. [/l.Ramachandra Reddy, Iearned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State. Perused the record 3 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is thal on 13.07 2019, the deceased namely Devendra, in an inebriated condition, accidentally fell down rnto the lift pit from the third floor of the residential building which is under construction, as a result of which he suffered grievous injuries leading to his death. The allegation against the petitioner-accused No.2 is that being the owner of the residential building under construction, he failed to exercise due supervision over the construction work and neglected to take necessary preventive measures to avert any untoward incidents 2 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits ttri t the father of the petitioner is the owner of the residential building u- ier construction in whrch the alleged incident had taken place, but not I e petitioner herein The father of the petitioner entered into a Developm l rt Agreemenlcum- General Power of Attorney, daLed 12.10.201g, witr accused No 1 for development of his property As per the said Deve < pment Agreement. the second party i e., accused No. j , who is the )eveloper of S V Builders and Developers, is sorery responsible if any z:cident or safety of the labour or the building is concerned and neither rl -. petitioner nor his father, who is the owner of the residential building, ; responsible. The entire property was handed over to accused No..l fo-:ommencing work. The allegations made in the complaint do not attribut: any specific role to the petitioner. except mentioning his name and the rr 1 redients of offence under Seclion 304-4 of IPC are not made out. F( nce, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additionar public prosecutor contended that all the allegations levelled in the corr llaint as well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of trial, and her:e, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. Acr:r rdingly, prayed to dismiss the petition. \ .ry 3

6. Having perused the registered sale deed bearing document No 1210 of 1977, dated 16 05.'1 977, it is evident that the father of the petitioner, namely J Ramchandra Reddy, is the absolute owner of the residential building under construction. The said J.Ramchandra Reddy (first party) entered into a Development Agreemenl-cum-General Power of Attorney, dated 12.10.2018 with accused No.1 (second party) for developing the said property, wherein, there are clauses 5 and 7(g), which reads as follow.

5. The "second parly" shall take total responsibility of the constructon of the said Residential Building and the "first pady" is in no way responsrble or liable for construction of the said Residential Building or for any loss whether financial or otherwise as a result of the construction and development undeftaken by the "second party". A// such /osses shall be borne by the "second pady" only. 7(g). The "second pafty" shall be fully and wholly responsible for att the compensations or the demands for compensation to be paid for any accidents or inluries during or in the course of the construction and development of the sard propefty to the labour/ labour's to any third pady. ) t

7. lt is an admitted fact that the petitioner is neither the owner nor a signatory to the said Development Agreement, nor was the petitioner involved in the supervision or execution of the construction work. The entire control and possession of the said premises had been handed over to accused No.1 in pursuance of the said Development Agreement. The prosecution has failed to produce any material to establish as to how the petitioner was connected with the subject residential building or he had any knowledge or contributed in any manner to the circumstances 4 leading to the accident. ln the absence of any sucl material evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged offence, the petit,c rer cannot be held liable for the alleged incrdent B. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allo'r, :d, quashing the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.2 r C.C.No.19911 of 2019 on the file of the learned lV Additional Chief tr4et cpolitan lt/agistrate at Nampally Pending miscellaneous applicatrons, if any, shir stand closed SD/- C. DEEPIKA S STANT REGISTRAR At //TRUE COPY// 1 SECTION OFFICER To

1. The IV Additional Chief Ir,/etropolitan Magistrate at Na 2. The Station House Officer,Amberpet polide Station, Hy 3. Two CCs to the Public prosecutoi, Hign Court for the S 4. One CC to Sri Aadesh varma Advocate [OpUC] 5. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] r pally, Hyderabad J :rabad t rte of Telangana at PIIMR/SA \ \ i HIGH COURT DATED:2511012025 !,' <' " i; i-, f -.- [; 20fr ORDER CRLP.No.377 of 2024 CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED ),h,