Criminal Petition No. 563 of 2025 · 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 pleased to Stay of all further proceedings including the appearance of the Petitioner/Accused in C.C No.347 of 2024 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile Court), Kamareddy, pending disposal of the main Criminal Petition. ) CRIMINAL PETITION No.564 of 2025 Between: Dr. Laxman Singh Nenavath, S/o. Bheem Singh Aged.abor t 60 years, Occ: Doctor R/o. Shaikapoor Village, Ramayampet Mandal, Mec K lJrst ' ...P l itioner/Accused AND 1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, Higt )ourt for the State of Telangana at HYderabad. Dr. Devi Yemema, D/o. Yesu Kumar, Aged about 30 years i :c: Doclor, R/o' Fiat Uo. f Oi Sri Eirclave, Ramareddy Rbad, Kamareddy Tcv n and District' ...RESPONDENTS/Dela :to Complainant Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in .[ e circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, tl-( High court may be pleased to Quash the proceedrngs against the Petitioner/A(x used and call for the records in pursuance to the charge sheet rn c.c .No.355 of ',. O24 on the file of the Special Judicial tvlagistrate of First Class (Mobile Court, Kamareddy and Quash the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused for allellr d offences under sections 354, 354D, 509 lPC. l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 Petitlon under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in t re circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, th,High court may be pleased to Stay of all further proceedings including the a )pearance of the Petitioner/Accused in c.c No. 355 of 2024 on the file of th, special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile Court), Kamareddy, pendil l disposal of the main Criminal Petition. CRIMINAL PETITION No.565 of 2025 Between: Dr. Laxman Singh Nenavath, S/o. Bheem Sing-h Agec.about^60 years, Occ: Doctor R/o Shankapoor Village Ramayampet Manda , Ivledak Dist .., F :titioner/Accused AND 1 2 The State of Telangana, Rep. by rts Public Prosecutor, Hir; Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Dr. Sanghi Vilayamahalaxmi, Wo. Shashidhar, Age{abo I S? ygqt: . Occ. Dottor, 'R/b. esnol Nagar Colony, Kamareddy Towr nd District. ...Respondents/D-' acto Complainant CRIMINAL PETITION No.567 of 2o25 Between: Dr. Laxman Sin Occ: Doctor R/o- gh Nenavath, S/o. Bheem Sing Shankapoor Village Ramayampel h Aged about 60 years, Mandal, Medak Dist. ...Petitioner/Accused No.2 AND 1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Dr. Bandi Hamablndu, W/o. Ajay Reddy, Aged about 35 years Occ: Doctor, R/o, Amrutha Comple-x, 1st Floor. Near MRO Office, Linjampet Village and Mandal, Kamareddy District. ...Respondents/Defacto Com plainant 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 pleased to Quash the proceedrngs against the Petitioner/Accused No. 2 and call for the records in pursuance to the charge sheet in C.C No. 348 of 2024 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile Court), Kamareddy and Quash the proceedings against the PetitioneriAccused for alleged offences under sections 354, 354D, 509 r/w 34 lPC. l.A. NO: l OF 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 pleased to Stay of all further proceedings including the appearance of the Petitioner/Accused No, 2 in C.C No. 348 of 2024 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile Court), Kamareddy, pending disposal of the main Criminal Petition. CRIMINAL PETITION No.568 of 2025 Between: Dr. Laxman Si Occ. Doctor R/o ngh Nenavath, S/o. Bheem Singh Aged about 60 years, . Shankapoor Village Ramayampet Mandal, Medak Dist, AND

1. 2 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. Dr. M. Bhanupriya, Wo. Pravin Kumar, Aged about 30 years Occ Doctor, R/o. H. No.5-8-743lA9, Ashonagar Colony, Kamareddy Town and Drstrict ...Petitioner/Accused ...Respondents/Defacto Com plainant Petition under section 529 of BNSS praying that ir the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar Fetition t " nigh c"rri rry be pleased to Quash the proceedings against the petitionerr\ :cused and ca for the records in pursuance to the chaige slheet in c.c No.344 o1 2oz4 on tnofire oi the Special Judiciat Magistrate of First Ctass (Mobite Cou.r , Kamare;ly ;n; Quash th^e_pro-c_eed ings against the petitioner/Accused for all{), ed offences under sections 354, 354D, 509 tpC l.A. NO: 2 OF 202s Petition under Section 52g of BNSS praying that rr :he circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Crimtnil Fetition | " H gn C"rri rry be pleased to stay of a[ fu_rther proceedings incruding tne rppeirance of th6 Petitioner/Accused in c.c No.344 of zozi on the fire t r , 'sp""i"L Lroi"iri Magistrate of first crass (Mobire court), Kamareddy, penci rg oisposat oi ine main Criminal Petition. CRIMINAL PETITION No.648 ot 2025 Between: Dr. Laxman Sin Occ: Doctor R/o. gh Nenavath, S/o. Bheem Singh. Agr: about 60 years, ShankapoorViilage RamayampelManii nil"jJi d,it,"" .. I etitioner/Accused AND

1. 2 Ihq Stqtg of Tetangana, Rep.. by.its public prosecutor. Hit r Court for the State of Telangana at Hydeiaba'd Asma Afsheen. Wo. Atif Shiraz khan, Age_d about 30 yea.r Occ. Doctor, R/o.H No. 4-5-27 tslampura, ramaieoo! %;;;ilbi.t; j ...Respondents/D,l acto Complainant Petition under Section_ 529 of BNSS praying that tn he circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal F"tition, f " Hign-C"rri,nrV be pleased to Quash the proceedings against the petitionerrf,, cused and call for the records in pursuance to the chaige iheet in c c No.s+e d zo24 ontnu-iii" or the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobite Court, KamareJay ,nJ Quash the pro^c_eed in-g s against the petitioner/Accusea ior alr€( ed offences under sections 354, 354D, 509 lpC l.A. NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section_ 12g of gtiSS praying that tn he circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal F"iition, rie High C;;;i;;; be pleased to Stay of all furth_er proceed ings in"frOing the i ppearance of the Petitioner/Accused in c.c No,343 0f 2o24"on ti," r,ld or tr: Speciar Judiciar Magislr?te. of First Class (Mobile Court), f"r"illoy,'p"nd r g disposal of the main Criminal Petition - These Petitions coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri D Satyanarayana, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri E.Ganesh, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri G.S.Sumanth, counsel representing Sri V.Amrutha Rao, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENTII iOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.563. 564. 5_61!, 566. 567. 568 and 648 of2o25 COMMON ORDER: Sirrce the accused is one and the same ir all the criminal petitions, these matters are heard togcr her and disposed of by u.ay ol this common order.

2. These petitions are filed under Sectiorr 528 of' Bharati_va Nagarik Sural<sha Sanhita, 2023 (i r short "BNSS") by the pctitioner-accused seeking quaslr rncnt o{' the proceedings in C.C.Nos.347, 355, 345, 346. | 18, 344 and 343 of 2024 on the file of the Spcial Judicial i\4 rgisrrate of First Class (Mobile Court), Kamareddy against h L: I for- the offence under Sections 354, 354D and 509 of Inrli rn l)enal Code.

3. Heard Mr.Donikeni Satyanarayana, learncrl counsel for the petitioner and Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistrr rt public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 - Srate and Mr.G.S.Sumanth, learned counsel rr,1 I esenting Mr.V.Amrutha Rao, learned counsel for respon<le -rt No.2. Perused the record. _- 2

4. Brief facts leading to filing of the criminal petitions are that the de-facto complainants/ medical ofhcers lodged separate complaints against the petitioner - accused stating that they have been u'orking as Medical Officers in different places at Kamareddy District. The accused, who was working as a DMHO officer, repeatedly assaulted and used criminal force against them with the intention of outraging their modesty, despitc lheir clear disinterest. All the de facto complainants alleged that on O8.O5.2O24 in the afternoon hours, the de-facto complainant and all Medical Officers went for trair-ring to DMHO Office, the accused insulted all women staff stating that "nenu DMHO Officer nadipsithunnana leda prostitution home nadipisthunnana meetho". Hence, thel' requested to take necessary action against the accu sed.

5. The Sub-lnspector of police, Devarrpally, registered ) cases against the petitioner-accused for the offence under Sections 354, 354 D and 5O9 of IPC. During the course of investigation the statements of the de-facto complainants and other witnesses were recorded and filed the charge sheet before the Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- Special l Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) at Karna ' ,ddv (for short 'the trial Court'), alleging that the petit i I .r er has committed the offencr:s under Section 354,354 D rnd 509 of IPC

6. During course of investigation the statemt:tt s of the de-lacto complainants rvere recorded by tht leztmed Additional Junior Civil Judge cum Special .Jurdicii.rl Magistrate of First Class (Mobile), Kamaredcly, r, Lerciu al question No.6 it has been posed to them what h r ;perted?, then, thev reiterated the facts mentioned in the cc mpieiints and seek necessary action against the accusec[

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would srr ,mit that the allegations mentioned in the complaint are ( l ( atctl anrl nothing would subsist against the petitioner-ar:r: tserl an<l subjecting him to undergo trial would amount to zrbrtse o[ process of law. There is a delay in lodging thc' , omplainL and there is no special reason mentioned about rbnormal delay mentioned in the complaints B. Learned counsel for the petitioner wolrld lr -\' olr the judgment passed b1' the Hon'ble Apex Court rn 7.". Antong .l u St<rte of Keralat, wherein the Hon,ble Apex Court emphasized that: "lt is thus seen that the reDort ancl findings of the Commission of [nquin. are n]cant for information of thc Government. Acccptzlncc of thc report of the Commission by the Govcrnment would onlv suggcst that bcing bound by the Rule of larv and having dLlty to act larrlv, it has endorsed to act upon rt. The duty of the police investigating agency of the State - is to act in accordance s,ith thc larv of the land This is best described by the learned law Lord , Lord Denning - in R. v- Metropolitan Police Cornmissioner [1968 (l) All E.L.R. 763 at p.769) observed as follows : "l hold it to bc thc dut-_v of thc Comrllissioner of police, as it is of evcry chief constable, to cn[orce the larv of the laltd. He must take steps so to post hls men that crirncs mav be detected; and that honesl citizens maY go altout their affairs in peace. He must dccidc whcthcr or no suspectcd persons are to be prosecuted; and, if ncecl bc, bring the prosecution or see that rt ts brought; L:ut in all thcsc things he is not thc scrvant of anyone, save of the lan itsclf.

9. He further relies upon the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Tara.k Dash Mukharjee d.nd. others u Sto.te of Utto.r Pradesh and others2 and Akbantddin Owaisi u the Government oJf A.P.s of the erstwhile composite High Court, submits that filing multiple FIRs for the same incident infringes upon the protection, as it subjects the accused to repeated legal proceedings for an identical cause. Therefore, he seeks indulgence of this ' lzoo r; 6 scc tst '(zol2) to scc s36 t (zo 1:) z scc,rt I 5 Court to quash the proceedings against the petrtioner_ accu sed.

10. On the other hand, learned Assisl,z r t public Prosecutor would submit that the trial is ur L, er active sesslon and the truth in these cases can be el r ilgcl ,;1... cond r-rcting ful l_fl edged trial, therefore, rnterfererr.c of this Court rs unw.arranted at this belated stage anrl seel(s to dismiss these cnminal petitions. I 1. Sailing with the submission made by learned \ssistant Public prosecutor, Mr.G.Suman, learned counsel representing learnecl counsel for respondent Nc. 2 u.ould submit that unless full_fledged trial is conducted : / !va_\r of recorcling the evidence of the witnesses, it cannot lte said that no such offence took place as alleged by thc Ce facto complainants. Hence, he would seek to disnrr -. ; these criminal petitions. I I

12. Having heard learned counsel for the l),) itioner, learned Assistanl public prosecutor arld learned r:orr rsel for responclent No.2, upon careful perusal of the compl I rrt and upon examination of the statement of the t e_fctcto x complainants recorded before the trial Court, since the trial has already commenced, interference of this Court at this stage is not warranted. However, the trial Court is directed to conduct thorough trial on merits and dispose of the C.C. Nos.347, 355, 345, 346, 348, 344 and 343 ol 2024, in accordance with law, as expeditiousl-v as possible. It is made clear that this court has not made any observations on the merits or demerits of the cases. Hort'ever, it is left open to the petitioner-accused to work out the remedies in the trial Court, where the criminal cases are pending against him.

13. With the above directions, these criminal petitions are disposed of As a sequel, miscellaneous applications if any, stalds closed SD/.B.REKH SISTANT REGI ARA /ITRUE COPY/I ECTION OFFICER ) To, \y

1. 2. ? 4 5 6 +l:sL",irii:l?i'fr ?l'ils:i#ffi [iiiiHrdl3:H:#fl ::l', Two CCs to Public Prosecuto Hyderabad tolT] . _ -^. .?na Advocate [opUC] one CC to Sri D SatYanaraY: il:E6 il Sii v.e'i'tna Rao' Advocate [oPUC] Two CD Copies ABK /PSI- ( .-3iElir4; HIGH COURT DATED: 2411112025 COMMON ORDER CRLP Nos: 563, 564, 565, 566, 567, 568 and 648ot'2025 . *- :_\. , SI.ai,':-r:: .,... .. .) 05 l!20 r.) t() io,. + ).i\ ,l DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITIONS 1 b I