The High Court · 2025

D.Viiav Chander Rao, S/o.Srinivas Rao Aged about 40 years, Occ Business' nlo.'tf .'ruo.tZ3-UCL. North Avenue, Kompally, Medchal ...Petitioner/Accused No.2 AND 1 The State of Telangana, Represented bf the Public Prosecutor of High Court at Hyderabad.

2.T.KrishnaRao,S/o.T-BixapathiRaoAgpdabout4-6years,OccBusiness' - ny" tt.N".S-8-i7, Kalvakunia' Sangaredijy Town, Sangareddy District' ...Respondents Petition under Section 482 of cr.P.Q praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of driminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in FlR.No. 716 of 2O2O on the file of PS Pet Basheerabad, Cyberabad District. l.A. NO: 1OF 2021 Petition under Section 482 of cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of $riminal Petition, the High Court may Oe jteaseO to stay all further proceedings ini FlR.No .716 of 2020 on the file of PS Pet Basheerabad, Cyberabad District l.A. NO: 2OF 2021 Between: The State of Telangana, Represented by the Public Prosecutor of High court at Hyderabad ...Petitioner/Respondent AND 1 D.Viiav Chander Rao, S/o.Srinivps Rao Aged aboul- 40 years' eriin6r., R/o.H.No.1 73-NCL, Nort! Avenue, Kompally, Medchal' Occ { .''ta*'V=V / ...RespondenUAccused 2. T.Krishna Rao, S/o. T.Bixapathi Rao Aged about 46 years, Occ Business, Rl/o.H.No.5-B-1 7, Kalvakunta, Sangareddy Town, Sangareddy District. ...RespondenUComPlainant (R2 is not necessary party) Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the stay granted in CrlP No 86012021 on the file of Hon'ble High Court dtd 151212021 . This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Crimrnal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N Krishna Sumanth, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2, The Court made the following: ORDER '* THE HONOURABLE SRr JUqTTCE J. SREENMS RAO CRIMINAL PETIT IO No.86O of2O2L ORDER: This Crirninal Petition has been filed under Section 4g2 of the Code of Criminal procedure, lg73, by the petitioner/ accused No.2 seeking to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.716 of 2O2O of Pet Basheerabad police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 12Ob, 3a4, 406, 42O pld 506 read with 34 of the Indiar Penal Code, 1a6O (for shqrt, 'the IPC').

2. When this rnatter carne up for consideration on

25.O4.2025, there was no rBpresentation on behalf of respondent No.2. To render substantial justice to the parties, the rnatter was posted to O I .Ot .2025 under the caption .for orders'. Today also there is nf representation on behalf of respondent No.2 either physicallf or virtually.

3. Heard Mr. N. Krishna Surnanth, Iearned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. M. VivekanBnda Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.l State.

4. Learned counsel for thf petitioner submitted that respondent No.2 approached tlre I Additionai Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sanga Reddy, and filed a private complaint vide C.F.R.)d1533 of 2Ot9 arl4 the learned Magistrate, after --.-- e 2 .-43' verifying the complaint and the docurnents enclosed along with the complaint and after hearing the counsel for respondent No.2, dismissed the complaint on O1.O7.2019 by passing a detailed order with cogent reasons. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.2 filed Crl.R.p.No.19 ol 2Ol9 before the Principal District and Sessions .Iuclge, Salga Reddy. The learned Sessions Judge dismisserl the said criminal revision petition on 24 .06.2C22 lor non-prosccution and the said order has become final. He further subrnitted that during pendency of the crirninal rcvision petition, respondent No.2 filed a private complainr before the XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal, on 3O.O9.2O2O with the very same allegations suppressing t1_rc fact of the lodging earlier c:ornplaint ald its dismissal on O7.O7.2O19 ald the pendency, of the criminal revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge. However, the learned XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, cybr:rabad at Medchal, referred the cornplaint to the police. Basing on the same, the present Crime No.716 of 2O2O was registered by thc pet Basheerpet Police Station against the petitioner and others. The initiation of the proceedings suppressing the several rnateriar facts constitutes a clear abuse of the process of lar,r,. ald the same is liable to be quashed. \. 0

5. Learned Assistant public prosecutor submitted that the grounds which are raised by leirrned counsel for the petitioner have to be adjudicated during the course of trial. Basing on the said grounds, the petitifner is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings arld ttre criminal petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. Having considered the rival submissions rnade by the respective pa-rties and upon plrusal of the rnaterial available on record, it reveals that resporident No.2 initialy approached the I Additional Judicial First elass Magistrate, Sanga Reddy, ald filed a private cornplaint ujnder Sections 19O and 2OO of the Cr.P.C. against the petitiofler and another accused. Ttte learned Magistrate dismissei{ the said cornplaint on O l.O7 .2C19 and passed a reaspned order. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.2 filed Crl.R.p.No. 19 of 2019 before the Principal District and Sejssions Judge, Sanga Reddy. During the pendency of the crir4rinal revision case, respondent No.2 filed another cornplaint aghinst the petitioner and others on 30.09.2O2O before the XXII Metropolital Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal, and ttie learned Magi strate referred the said cornplaint to the Pet Bastreerabad police Station. Pursuant to the sarne, the Pet Basheerpet police registered Crime No.716 of 2O2O on 20.lO.e,O2O against the petitioner for I I t I ,. ^r.j j 4 the offences under Sections 12Ob, 384,406,42O ar'd 5O6 read with 34 of th<: IPC. 7 . On a perusal of the prt:sent complain L zrntl the earlier order passcd by the I Atlditional Judicial First Class Magistrate in C.F.No.1533 of 2O19 datecl Ol'O7'2O19' it revea-ls that respondent No.2 has made the very sarrle allegations ngainst the petitioncr' Hence, thrs Court is of thc considcred view tlrat contintr:rtion of proceedings against the petitioner in the present Crime No'716 of 2O2O arnounts to a clear abusc of the Process of law' a. For the foregoing dis<:ussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to in voke Section 482 to qr-rash the proceedings agannst the Cr.P.C- petitioner/ accused No.2. g. In the resr.rlt, the Criminal Petition is allowed' The proceedings against the petitioner/ accused No 2 regrstered for the offences under Sections 12Ob' 384, 406, 42O and 5O6 read with 34 of t.he IPC in F.I.R.No.716 ol 2O2O of Pet Basheerabad Police Station, Cyberabad, are hereby qr'rashed Misccllaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed Sd/. T. SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR -N SECTION OF FICER I/TRUE COPY// to',,. -n. XXll Additionar Metropolitan Magistrate, cyberabad at Medchal

2. The Station House Officer, Pet Basheerapad Police Station, Cyberabad 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Couft for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI

4. One CC to Sri N Krishna Sumanth, Advopate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies ABK,/kam HIGH COURT DATED: 0110912025 ORDER CRLP.No.860 of 2021 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION I I 'iA7' i\i /. o- \)oo [ 1st'' to" * ,1 I r_,.,\', :---- -z {\', )< ./.' ,// ,../