✦ Telangana High Court

Judgment · High Court

3 min read

Case at a glance

Outcome

Allowed

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 66. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Pending rniscellaneou.s applications, i.f any, shall stand closed. ,/TRUE COPY'T SD'. M.OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER To, lbrahimpatnam. (with records if any)

Judgment

SRI JUSTrcE J SREENVAS RAO Between J;:TJ.il:5,:?.h",Tffii AND x;?"fi:?l li"{:;:;, _?ffi, iJ:*r, R'o 3.s42'5 ..Petitioner/Accused No.2 1' The state of retangana through p 2' sri' K saiduru, sub-rnspe.torti porice, L.B r.r"gr,. ;orice station, Rachakonda H i s h c o u rt of .r u o i ci t u ; ;i 6i ; ra oa o, Commissionerate, Hydbrabad. L. q_Nagar, Rep. by its pubric prosecutor, J,# [ ;i re ra n s a n a . -ri., ,s ... RespondenUComplainant Petition under section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminat'peiitiJn, *re nigh court may be pleased to gyash the proceedings in cc No.'151l2023 0n the fite of il Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class. Ranga Reddy District at L.B Nagar. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argumentJ of Sri Naveen Kumar Miryala, Advocate for the P_etitioner (No Representation) and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalt of tne Respondent Nos.1 and 2. The Court made the following: ORDER c I , rN rtrE rrrcH "ot'*IJ;H;x1;Ifit'oF TI]tE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J'SREENIVAS RAO TELANGANA Date: 03.03'2026 Between: Taluri Ashok ...Petitioner/ Accused No'2 AND The State of Telangana, through P'S' L'B'Nagar' Prosecutor and represetrted uy Tts another 'pt'Uti" ORDER "ResPondents This Criminal Petition has been liled by the petitioner/accused No.2 se:eking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.151 of 2023 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy Distric: at L.B.Nagar, for the offences under Sections 170, 419,467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPCJ and Sectiorr 25 (18)(a) of Arms Act, 1959.

2.

Irlo representation on behalf of the petitioner. t I I{eard Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional

3.

pnblic prosecutor appearing for respondent Nos. I and Z, 4- C,n perusal of the record, it reveals that aCCUSed NOS.I and 3 have approached this Court and fiIed Crirninal petition tIt f n 2 Nos.8o96 of 2ot9 and 1o9oo of 2Cr23 respectively seeking to quash the very same proceedings and this court allowed. said criminal petitions on 18.o3.2o2o and 06.og.2025 and quashed the proceedings against them. Hence, this court is of the view that continuation of the proceed.ings against accused No.2 for the very same offences levelled. against him is abuse of process of law.

5.

For the foregoing reasons as well as the orders of this court dated 18.o3.2o2o and 06.08.2025 in crirninal petition Nos.BO96 of 2olg and 1O9OO of 2Ci23, the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.2 in C.C.No.15l of 2023 on the fiIe of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, are hereby quashed.

Operative part

6.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Pending rniscellaneou.s applications, i.f any, shall stand closed. ,/TRUE COPY'T SD'. M.OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER To, lbrahimpatnam. (with records if any)

1.

The ll Additional Judicial lvlagistrate of First class' Ranga Reddy District At - ::-"^:^; 2. The il ru"troioiitan rrlagistrate At [.'4. Nt"g"r, Rachakonda. 3. The station House officer, L.;. N;g;i r ,"0 o pori"" station, Rachakonda t of Telangana at HyderaOad 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor' High Cout 5. 8Sl" to sri Naveen Kumar Miryala' Advocate to Pucl 6. Two CD CoPies n..L,:^ Dr^- District. I I +0. GNKIPSL HIGH COURT DATED: 0310312026 ORDER CRLP.No.109B of 2026 OWING THE CRI INAL PETITION @ b

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 528; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 170, 419, 467, 468, 471; Arms Act, 1959.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Telangana High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments