The High Court · 2025

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 oleased to quash the F.l.R. fending against the petitioners/Accused Nos. 3 and 5 in Cr. llo 345 ot2024 of P.S. Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad l.A. NO:2 oF 2025 PetitionunderSection52SofBNSSprayingthatinthecircumstances stated in the Memorand* oiCiornar of Criminal- Pelition, the High Couh may_ be ftre investigation Jenaing against the petitioners in cr. No. 345 of ii"l*j tii ibi;;sl;;r"'d oy e.s. Luiiree nitls, ou-ring the pendencv of the present Criminal Petition "t.y ,srrF This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri ENUGANTT SUDHANSHU RAo Advocate for the petitioner and sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, the Assistant Public prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No..l and None appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER t. THE i{ONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.527 of 2O2S ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners / accused Nos 3 and 5 in Crime No.34 5 ol 2024 of Jubilee Hiils Police Station' Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3O8, 336, 279 ar,d 1O9 of the Indian Penal Code' 1860 (for short 1PC'), Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (for short, 'PDPP Act') ar-rd Section 185 read with Section 2O5 of Motor Vehicles Act' 1988 (for short, 'MV Act').

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2/Sub Inspector of Police, lodged a report stating that on 24 .O4.2O25, while he was on patrolling duty, he received occurred at Road information that a car accident had No.36/ 1O, beside Shree Jewellers, Jubilee Hills' Hyderabad' Immediately, he reached the spot along with his staff and found one Mercedes-Benz electric car bearing registration number TS 09 FR 6555 rammed onto the footpath' having hit 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.527 of 2O25 an electric transformer as well as a wal1, thereby causing damage to public property. The driver was found to be in an intoxir:atecl condition and had fled the scene, leaving the car behinrl. Subsequentlyr a person who introduced himself as a driver from Uber informcd the officer that there were five indivicluals in the car, including a womanr and that all appearecl to be intoxicated. He stated that thcy had driven recklcss[.y and negligently, u'hich led to thc car ramming the footpath and hitting the elcctric transformer. Aftcr committing the accictent, they had engaged his vehicle to lravel to park Hyatt Hc,tcl. Basing on this information, the Sub_lnspector rushed to Park Hyatt Hotel, where he found live individuals, includrng one woman, seated in the lobby area. Upon inquity and conducting a bre:rth anal-1.zer test, it was confirmerl that all the inrlividuals werc rntoxicated, except Accused No. 4.

3. []as;ing on thc same, the police registercd the case for the offences punishable under Sections 3Og, 336, 279 and 109 of IP,l, Section 3 of pDpp Act and Section 1g5 read with Section 205 of MV Act. Furthcr, the remancl report shows that accu scd Nos.2 to S committed the offence punishable only under Section 3O8 read with 109 of IpC. ' 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.527 of 2O25

4. Heard Sri Enuganti Sudhanshu Rao' learned counsel for petitioner/ accused Nos 3 and 5, and Sri M' Vivekananda Reddy,learnedAssistantPublicProsecutor'appearingfor respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 5. petitioners herein were co-passengers in the alleged vehicle and were not responsible for driving it and that there was no instigation, conspiracy, or aid on the part of the petitioners towards the driver; hence, they cannot be treated as abettors to the alleged offences He further submitted that the petitionersdidnotcommitanyactsorashlyornegligentlyas to endanger human life or the personal safety of others They were merely passengers seated in the vehicle' He further submitted that the report of l]ne rle facto complainant does not disclosethecommissionofanyoffencepunishableunder Section 3O8 of the IPC, as there was no intention or knowledge on the part of the petitioners that their conduct could cause death, such intent or knowledge being a requisite element for thesaidoffence.Thepetitionersalsodidnotpossessany means of control over the vehicle' thereby negating the applicability of the offences alleged against them' Therefore' 4 sKs,J Crl.P.No.527 of 2025 a": he pra5.:d the Court to quash the proceedings against the petrtione rs by allowing this criminal petition.

6. Orr the other hand, learnecl Assistant public prosecutor opposed the submissions o[ the learned counsel for Lhe petitioncrs stating that accuscd No.1 is not a residcnt of India, and accused Nos.2 to 5 did not prevent accused No.l from driving l,re vehicle in a drunken condition at high speed. He lurther submitted that the invcstigation \.as not yet completed and €rt this sLage, quashing of procecdings against the petitioners does not arise. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal petition. 7 . Considering the rival submissions made by both partics and upotr perusai of the material available (ln record, it is admittr:d that the petitioners \vere passengcrs ir.r Lhe car. It is not the r:ase of the prosecution that eithcr of thc pctitioners was drivirg tl-re vehicle at the time of the accident. The or-rly allegation against the petitioners pcrtains to thc oll.ence r-rnder Sectron 308 of IPC, on the ground that they abettecl the commissi()n of the said offence. Howcver, a plain reading of the complaint reveals that there are no specific ailegations i 1 , I I ,i ! i i I I I I *-!'t SKS,.' Crl.P.No.527 of 2025 indicating that the petitioners abetted accused No l in the commission of the offence. In the absence of any such material or averments constituting the offence under Section 308 of IPC, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners u,ould amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners are liable to be quashed.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the pe titioners / accused Nos 3 and 5 in Crime No.345 of 2024 of P.S. Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous applicatlons, if any pending, shall also stand closed . BHAVANI SWAMY S TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The XV ll Addl. Chief MetroP olitan Mag istrate at Na irally, HYderabad The Station House One CC to SRI EN Two CCs to the Pu Hvderabad [OUT] Triro CD CoPies Officer, Jubilee Hills Police Station, HYderabad UGANTI SUDHANSHU RAO, Advocate [OP ucl blic Prosecutor, High Court fo r the State of Telangana at 1 2 3 4 5 SM/gh \a HIGH COURT DATED: 0710712025 ORDER CRLP.No.527 of 2025 0 I 0[T 292.5 .':./ . , -.,, ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION Bcca(eA W -=ija5 clo t ''