High Court · 2025

No'2/DEFAcro ..MPLAINANT Petition under Section 528 of BNSS' prayino that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandrr".ttl"*Or oiCii.inif Fetition, the High Court may be oleased to quash tnt"p'-""J"ii"gl against the petitioner in FIR No 1130 of Zoii *.iorllioz+ on the file of the PS Bachupallv'; "'RE'P.NDENT l.A. NO:2 oF 2025 Petition under Section 482 ot Ct'P'C praying that in the.circTlst?1:es stated in the Memorandm ot C|.o'nas of Criminal Petition'the High Court may to stay arr turttrei proceedings in FIR No 113o of 2024 daled ;;';i.;; 3O111t2024 on the file of PS Bachupally; This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M KALYANA RAMA KRISHNA, Advocate for the Petitioner Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, Asst. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and none appear for the Respondent No.2; The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL ION Irto.470 of2()2s ORDER: petitioner-accused This Criminal petition is filed Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (forshort .the BNSS) seeking to quash the proceedings against the No.3 in Crime No. 113O of 2024 of pS Bachupally, Cyberabad Commissionerate registered for the offences punishable under Sections 352 and 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhit a, 2023 (for short, tsNSJ

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 26.t7.2O24, the de-facto complainant lodged a report before the Station House Officer (SHO), Bachupally police Station, stating that he is an employee in a Central Government department. He had rented out his flat to accused Nos. 1 and 2 in December 2023. From the first month of tenancy, the accused consistently avoided paying rent, giving various excuses and failing to rnake any payments despite repeated reminders' on 18'O9'2O24' the asked theI(L."tg.. vacate the premises and clear cornplainant o a-t'l 2 sl<s'J Crl.P.No.41o of2O25 pending dues and rent arrears ln retaiiation' the accused iodged a false complaint' and the same is registered in FIR No.940 of 2O24for offences under Section s 7 4 ' 79 ' arlid 329$l of the BNS' Additionally' they submitted an RTI application to the complainant's workplace in an attempt to access conhdential details such as service records and hnancial documents, which are protected under privacy laws and irrelevant to their interests' It is further stated that on 25'1 l '2024 ' when accused 3. No. 1 verbaily abused the complainant's wife in the building cellar, using vulgar language and intimidating gestures' including language that urged her to die' As a consequence' the wife of the complainant suffered severe psychological rauma, impacting the entire family's emotional ald frnancial well-being. The accused have been blackmailing the complainalt, demanding he transfer ownership of the flat to them without compensation' They have also threatened to damage his career by fabricating false cases and abusing legal tools like the RTI Act for personal gain' all while defaulting on rent Payments. ".,.r.no.o.o oi.TiJ

4. Basing on the same, the police registered the case for the offences punishable under Sections 3S2 and 35i(2) read with Section 3(5) of BNS. g. Heard Sri M. phanindra pavan counsel appearing on behalf of Sri M learned counsei for Vivekananda Kashyap , learned Kalyana Rama Krishna, petitioner/accused No.3 and Sri M Iearned Assistan t pubiic prosecutor, respondent No.l_State. Though notice was appearing for served to respondent No.2, none appeared on his behalf. Reddy, 6 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is completely innocent ald has no connection whatsoever with the alreged offences, the other accused, or the de-facto complainant. He further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and arrayed as an accused in the FIR withour any pima facie materiai, solely with an ulterior motive to coerce her into an unjust settlement a substantial monetary demand. He further involving that the allegation made by respondent No.2 branding the petitioner as the "kingpin" and abettor of the submitted alleged acts committed by the co-accused is baseless and 4 SI(S'J +lO ol2025 cd.P'No' bv anv -t:;;;:,-::"":" ::: unsupported --r:^qfion appears to be a and obstruct her 1:: . that the petitioner tras reco'^"-'r Examinadon' and her wrongful t*nt"*t" . deliberate attempt to ernish her reputadon career prospe"t"' "n"'";'e' proceedings against the petitioner by allowng - he praved -::::l;J"j:::- Petidon'

1. "t::':-:'' on the other hand' learned o"""*::T* submitted that apart from the allegation that the petitioner ls an abettor to the remaining accused' there is no specifrc allegation against *t O"tntrl"'' Therefore' he prayed that the Court may be pleased to pass appropriate orders'

8. ln view of the submissions made by both learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record' it is observed that the sole allegation against the petitioner is that she acted as an abettor to the other accused except that there are no specifrc anegations against her. Furthermore' the petitioner has qualifred in the Main exarninadon of Gror-rp-l services' Considering the facts and circumstances of the case' 5 c.r.p.ro.+ro ors*?J this Court deems it fit to Petitioner. quash the proceedings against the

9. Accordingly, this Criminal peddon is al.l< proceedings against the neriri^-^_, of Bachupalry porice star hereby quashed. altowed and the ."" petitioner in crime No i 130 of 2024 lion' cyberabad commissionerate, "^ Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. //TRUE COPYII SD/. AHMED ABDU LLA KHAN NT RE GISTRAR ,/ , To, Hyderabad 1 The Prl_ Junior Civil Judge _cum_Xl Addl. Met 2. The Station House Officer, Bachupally p.S.. Cyberabad 3. One CC to SRt. M KAL ii#sffi .",3,,#lls[ffi mxATfJ:Htf :,,flix,s,i?30,3,,, n Magistrate, Kukatpally, SECTION OFFICER VSM/gh r r+- HIGH COURT DATED:15 t1tt2O2S oR 1rl k( ,{ r) 16 sEP 206 a a\' -.t- ,1' ORDER CRLP.No.410 of ZO2S ALLOWNG THE CRIMINAL PETITION (t- 1q, %