The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the A/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the order dI 7l9l2l,18 passed by the Hon'ble Vl f\iletropolitan [t/lagistrate, Medchal ttlalkajgiri District at Medchal in Crl-lttl.P No. 14612011 in CC No.25712016 which confirmed in Criminal Revision Petition No 2212022 vide order dt 3011O12O24 on the file of the Hon'ble District and Session Judge, IVedchal Malka.igiri District at lvledchal by duly conducting trial and punish the accused . l.A. NO: 1OF ZO25 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 all further proceedings in Crl.P.No.22' of 2022 pending on the file of ll Additional District and Sessions Judge Medchal-lvlalkajgiri District at IVedchal including dispensing with the Crl.M.P. No. '146 ot 2011 in C,C.No. 257 of 2016 Vl Metropolitan Arlagistrate, It/ed chal-lrila lkajgiri District at Medchal of the Petitioner/Accused No- 1 and 2 herein . This Petition il,lming on for hearing,upon perusing the lvismorandum of Grounds of crir.rnal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri RAJAGOPALLAVAN rAYl ,Advocate for the petiti6ner and Adrtitional .pubtic Prosecutor on behaf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri pRANAy SOHINI Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 The Court made the following ORDER: 2 THE HON,B LE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENI\IAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.663 of2025 ORDER: . This crimina,l petition is Iiled by the petitioner invoking the provisions of Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Salhita (BNSS) questioning the order dated 3O.LO.2O24 in Crl.R'No.22 of 2022 passed by the II AdditionalDistrictandSessionsJudge,Medchal-Malkajgiri District and Medchal, confrrming the order dated 07.Og.2Ol8 in Crl.M.P.No.146 of 20 11 in C'C'No'257 of 2O16 passed by the VI Metropolitan Magistrate' Medchal- Malkajgiri District at Medchal' Heard Sri Rajagopallavan Tayi, learned counsel for 2 the petitioner, Sri Pranay Sohini, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No'2 arrd learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No. I . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 3 petitioner filed a private complaint against respondent Nos.2 and 3/A1 and A2 and another person/A3 before the F ,] 3 VI Metropolit;al Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Medchal and the said complaint was referred to police for investigatiorr. The Investigating Officer after conducting investigattor:r filed charge sheet and the sarn(: was numbered res C.C.No.257 of 2016 (Old C c No l'-O7 of 2006l. In the said C.C., respondent Nos.2 and 3/I'1 and A2 filed al application vide Crl.M.P.No.146 of 2Ol1 under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., seeking to discharge them from the main case. The learned Magistrate allowed thr: said application by order dated 07.09.2O18. Aggrieved by the said orcler, l-he petitioner filed revision petitiorr vide Cr1.R.P.No.122 of 2022 raising severa-l grounds. The l':arned II Additiona District and Sessions Judge, Mt''dchal- Malkajgiri I)istrict at Medchal, without giving any r€'asons, much less, valid reasons simply conhrmed the order of the learned Magistrate and the same is in gross violatiorL of the principles of n atural justice.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos-2 submits that subsequent to tht' order passed by tbe learned Magistrate in Crl.M.P.No. 146 of l 4 2O 1 1, respondent No.3/A2 died on ts.OT .2Ot9. The petitioner without verifying the same has filed revision petition against a dead person. He further submits that the re'risional Court after going through the records and a-lso the order passed by the learned Magistrate in Crl.M.P.No.146 of 2011 has rightly dismissed the revision petition. He further submits that Accused No.3 - Sri T. Nageshwar Rao, who is the primar5r accused, was already discharged. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions judge. l,earned counsel also submits that the revision petition may be dismissed against respondent No.2/A3 on the ground of his death.

5. Having considered the rival submissions made by respective parties and after perusal of the impugned order dated 3O.IO.2O24 passed by the revisional Court, it reveals tl:at tl"e revisional Court simply extracted the averments of the case, judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner, observations made by the learned Magistrate in order dated O7.O9.2OIa and memorandum of grounds 5 .l ralsed by the petitioner and framed the pcrint for consideration that whether the petitioner is entitleci for the relief as prilved for or not and dismissed the r.evision petition and simply confirmed the order of the rearned Magistrate. It is very much relevalt to extract the operative portion of the impugned order passed .ry the rerrisional Coru-t, which reads as under: "On perusal of the record, it appears that the learned Magistrate rightly discharge Accused No. 1 and 2 a ad that the findings of the learnecl Magistrate based on sound reason s. prima facie, it appears that ,{1 and A2 did not cheat anybod1,. Therefor.,:, this criminal revision petition is liable ro be dismirssr:d.,,

6. Thus, the, above said order clearly reveals thal the learned Sessionrs Judge has not considered the gror rnds raised by thr: oetitioner while dismissing the revirsion petition. Therefore, this Court is of the considereci r iew that the revisiona-l Court ought to have considered the contentions raised by the parties and ought to have 6,ive reasons while clisrnissing the revision petition. But, withrut 6 a assigring any reason, the revisional Court simply conf,rrmed the order of the learned Magistrate It is very much relevant to mention here that the 7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rai Kishore Jha tt. State of Bihart, held as under:

19. Before we part with the case, we feel it necessary to indicate that non-reasoned conclusions by appellate Courts are not appropriate, more so, when views of the lower Court are differed from. In case of concurrence, the need to again repeat reasons may not be there. It is not so in case of reversal. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. Without the same, it becomes lifeless.

8. ln Stoite oJ PubJab a. Bhag Singhz' the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under

6. Even in respect of administrative orders, Lord Denning, M.R. in Breen u. Amalgamated Engg'' Union l(1971\ 1 ALL ER 1]aa: $9711 2 QB I75 : (lg7ll 2 WLR 742 (CA)l observed: "The grving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration." In Alexander Machinery Pudleg) Ltd., us. Crabtree [1974 ICR 12O (NIRC)] it was observed: "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at'" Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the '1zoo:;ttsccste '? lzoo+y t scc s+z 7 r- \.] po\r\,.e r c)f judicial review in adjudging the valiclity of the de,:ision. Right to reason is a-n indispens,able prf! o a sound judicial system, reasons al .east sufficrierLt to indicate al application of minJ to the matter tefore Court. Another rationale is that the affectrtcl party can know why the decision fr." 1,,,r.. against him. One of the salutary ."qri..rn.rrt,, of natural justice is spelling out reasons lor the order made, in other words, a speaking_out. "inscr-utable face of the "phi.r*" Ts ordinr rilv inconrlruLous with a judicial or q"^"i-;"J,.ij perfor:mzLnce. -

9. In vie:w of the above, this Court, without goirrg into other aspects of the case, only on the sole ground that the impugned order was passed without assigning an_v r3asons is of the considered view that the same is liable to be set

10. Accorclirrgiy, the criminal petition is a_Ilowed a:rd the impugned o.derr dated 30.ro.2024 passed by the rea:.ned II Additional D istrict and Sessions Judge, Medchal_M a1 l<aj giri District at Medchal, in Crl.R.p.No.22 of 2022 is hereby set aside. The learned II Additional District ald Ses,sions Judge is directed to dispose of the revision petition z:fresh in accordan<:e with law as early as possible, prefe,.ably, within a periocl of six months from the date of receipr_ of a copy of this.-order. The learned Sessions Judge is also ,- ,:.) 8 directed to take into consideration the aspect of the death of respondent No.2/A3 while disposing of the revision petition. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-N.SRIHARI EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER one Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice J SREENIVAS \Jr ru ' urr " -"' iFo' His Lordships Kind Perusal) To

1.The ll Additional District and Sessions Judge' Medchal- Malkaigiri Drstrict at y*J'J' Metroporitan Masistrate , Medchat' *'1n'.*::i/#';ll'-"[,r,rruisi,i District 6 i[ ll"i'i"';["" oni"E' ' Jeedimetla Police Statiot +. tt ln Copi.t nf law Justice and Company Affairs' ?. irr"'urr"o.it;;cretary' union of lndia Ministry of law' 6. The Secretary Telangana Advocates Association' Library' High Court Buildings 7. Two CCs to Additional Public Prosecutor' High Court for the State of Telangana at ,?ff 's!t!:{llm","J,i,'-rxilJjJ'(s',l8;"eroPUCl g One CC to Sri PRANAY 10. Two CD CoPies New Delhi Hvderabad i ,-.J:^ ^^nic+^/ \( HIGH COURT DATED:071O412025 L.R. COPY TO tsE NIAI{KED ORDER CRLP.No.663 oI 2025 -\ 1 i'ii: [;11 / { .\ t",; B o ( o 1 7 APri 2025 v a t QE ,5 F'A i o ALLOWING THE CITI,.PE'I'ITION 9-q @{4 tr*\a!