Criminal Petition No. 820 of 2025 · High Court of Telangana · 2025

2. Sri Ravi Shankar, S/o Bushanam, Age. 46 years, C)cc. NIL, R/o H.No. 112-15- 2"4 Floor', Road No.5, Doctors Colorry, Saroornagar. ...Rcspondents/ Defacto Complainant. Petition under Section 528 of BNSS prayirrg tl-rat in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Crirninal Pc.tition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings/ cl-rargc sheet in C.C.No.800 of 2022, in FIR 786/2021 dated29-72-2021 on the file of thc V Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, against the Petitioner 1 to 3, Accused2to 4. I.A. NO: 7 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances statecl in the Memorandum of Grounds of Crirnir-ral Petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense A2 to A4 in C.C.No 800 of 2027, dated 29-72-2021 on the file of the V Addl Metropolitan Magistrale, .rt [,.8. Nagar, Ranga Recldy District, before this Honorable Court. I'his Petition coming on for hcaring, upon perusing the Memorandum of Glounds of Criminal Petition and upon hcaring the arguments of Gudla Bharani Kumar for Ms. Radhika Sharma Palla, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Assistant Public Prosecutor on bel-ralf of thc Rcspondent No.1, The Court made the following: ORDER -1=-7 t I I I I I I i THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUXANTI CRiIIIIN AL PETITION IJo.82O OF 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is fiied under Sectron 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surakshzr Sanhita (for short 'BNSS') by the petitioners/ accused Nos.2 to 4 to quash the proceedings/charge sheet in C.C.l'lo.BO0 of 2022 in FIR No.786 of 2,027, ciated 29.12 2021, cn the file ol V Additional I\4elroplitan Xiagistrate at L.B. I',lagar, Ranga i{eddy District. The offences alleged against pelitioners are tLnCer Sr:ctions 44a, 323 and 5O6 read v;ith 34 o[ thc Indian Penal Code (fol short 'lPC').

2. He ard Mr. Bharani Kumar. learned counsel for' petitioners ar-rd Nlls. S. Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor lor the respondent No.l - State. Perused the material on re cord.

3. De factct complainant/ respondent No.2, is the husband of P. Madhavr, she intended to save money by becoming a member in private chits (Chit Funds). One Sujatha Goud / accused No. 1 approached P. Madhavi (wife of 2 JAI', J CRLP 820 20t5 complainant) and introduced herSeif that she is running private chits and she promised her that if she joins, she will accommodate in the lnd 61 Jrd month the chit amount to her It is also observed from the FIR that when P. Madhavi became highest bidder in the 8th month, she was paid Rs.50,000/- and Sujatha Goud promised that she will pay rest of the amor.rnt within a short period. De facto complainant's wife approached Sujatha Goud personally and requested for ba,lance amount. However, it was refused. On 28.12.2021, de facto cornplatnant sent a legal notice to Sujatha Goud. The allegation is that petitioners herein along with Sujatha Goud trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and bet P. Madhavi with hands in the absence of respondent No.2

4. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that allegations made against petitioners in the complaint are false and that de facto complainant is the husband of P. Madhavi and that he is not aq,are of the transactions and conversations between his wife P. Madhavi and Sujatha Goud That allegations levelled against petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 are false and baseless. It is also subrnitted that

1. 1 -7ri:'T7 3 JAK, J CRLP 820 2025 petition ers / acou sed Nos.2 to 4 are r,villing to fac': the trial and their presence may be dispensed with.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor sLtbmitted that charge sheet is liled arrd allegations are that they trespassed into the house of de facto comPlainant and bet P. Madhavi with hands. That these issues irave to be gone into at the stage of trial, hence no interference is necessitated.

6. As seen lrom the iilR, record,/ documents antlexed u'ith the criminal petition, de facto complainant is the lrusband of P. Madha",i, a rnember of private chit run by accused No.1 i.e., Sujatha Goud. Petitioners/ accused Nos.2 to 4 are not part of chit busrness. It is a,lleged that petitioner Nos.2 to 4 along with Srlatha Gottd trespassed and bet P. Madhavi and threatened. As observed from the record, there is no complaint u,it}'r regard to any irrjuries. It is the allegation that in response to a legal notice dated 28.12.202I, the incident occurreci. No specilic allegations are pleaded against petitioner Nos. 1 to 3. 7 . Having considered the submissions an<l taking into account the entire factual matrix of the case, this Court is of 4 JAK, J CRLP 820 202s o the considered opinion that the allegations are not grave in nature, presence of petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 i.e., accused Nos.2 to 4 in C.C.No.800 of 2022 on the file of V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at L.B Nagar, Ranga RedCy District, can be dispensed with and their presence is dispensed. B. It is made clear that iietitioner Nos.l to 3 sha,ll present themselves before the learned I\4agistrate, if their presence is required. Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 shall file affidavit(s) that they will not dispute their identity and that the proceedings can go on in their absence, to be conducted by their counsel(s). Learned counsel(s) for petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 shall represent before the trial Court rvithout fail on all dates. petitioner Nos.l to 3 shall not dispute the proceedings conducted in their absence. This order shall stand vacated automatically, if petitioners IaiI to attend the proceedings as and when summoned by Court and also when the counsel(s) representing petitioner Nos.1 to 3 fail to attend Court proceedings on the dates. Any observations made in this order sha-ll not influence the Court below while considering or concluding the case at the time of trial. 5 JAK, J CRLP 820 2025 g. With tite above observa-tions, the Criminal Petition is d isposed of. Miscellaneous applications pending, if an1', shall stand clo sed //'L'RUECOPY// sd/- L. VTJAYA LAXMT / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR/ i\ t\ CTION OFFICER To,

1. The V Aclcll Mt'tropolita;r N{agistrate, at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. 2. The Station Horrse Officer, Saroornagar Police Station, Rachakonda Comrnissionela te.

3. Sri Rar,l Shtrnkar, S/o. Busl-ranarn, H.No. 772-15-738,2,,1Floor, Road No.5, Doctors Colon1,, S.r roornagar, Flyderabad. 4. One CC to Ms. Raclhika Palla, Advocate [OI']UC] 5. One CC to the l'ublic Prosecutor, High Court Buildinl;s, Hyderabad. [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies lcK/gh <A- IIIGII COURT DA'[ED:29 /07/2025 ORDER CRLI'].No.820 of 2025 Disposing of tl-re Climu-ral Petition /-A, (P'. (9 ffjr's \1? STAIc: 1 /, ?/< t. - \"n 't t 2 5 t{ri\B 2[25 C. t c\'\ l:I )ATC\'\