Mohammed Mohamood AND Karasani Shekhar Reddy v. NONE

Foods), R/o Villa number 4-1091/7, Road number-O9, Shri Ramnagar colony, Turkayamjal Village, Abdullapurmet mandal, RR District.-574202. ...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in SC No. 183 of 2025 on the file of the learned XV Addl District and Sessions Judge, RR District at lbrahimpatnam against the Petitioner/Accused No. 12,14 for the offences Uls 342, 395, 506 IPC and Sections 25(1Xa), 27 of lhe Arms Act; l.A. NO:1 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 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 appearance of petitioners/Accused No.12,14 in SC No. 183 of 2O25 on the file of the learned XV Addl District and Sessions Judge, RR District at lbrahimpatnam for the offences U/ss 342, 395, 506 IPC and Sections 25(1)(a), 27 of the Arms Act in the interest of justice. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of ()riminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M AMARNATH, ,\dvocate for the Petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Addl. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. '1 and none appear for the Responderrt No.2; The Court macle the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.1598 of 2026 Date210.02.2026 Between: Mohammed Mohamood @ Maimood and another ...petitioners/accused Nos. 12 and 1,4 AND The State of Telangana, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad and another. ORDER ...respondents This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.183 of 2025, on the file of the XV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at lbrahimpatnam, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.12 and 14, for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 395 and 506 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short '[PC') and Sections 25(1)(a) and 27(l) of The Arms Act, 1959.

#2. Heard Mr. M. Amarnath, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1. 2 3' Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence and they have been falsely impricated in the present case. Even according to the allegati.ns made in the compraint as we, as in the finar report, the ingredie'rts of the offences punishabre under Sections 342,39s, and 506 of trre Ipc and Sections 25(r)(a) and 27(r)of the Arms Act, 1959 are not attracted against the petitioners, as they were not present at the scene of the offence. Funhermore, neither in the complainl nor in the final report did the In vestigating Officer mention the involvement of accused No. I. 4' He further submitted that the petitioners have been arrayed as accused sorery on the basis of the confession shtemen* given by the co-accused, which are not admissibre in evidence as per Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1g72. He also submitted that the pe'titioners did not activery participate in the a,eged offence. Tho imprication of the petitioners is based onry on the confession statements and the call data records. Hence, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioners amounts to a clear abuse of the process of law, and the proceedings against them are liable to be quashed \ \ \ ,'/' ,' * 3

#5. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioners to the effect that they were present at the scene of the offence and escaped therefrom in their respective vehicles. The allegations against the petitioners are very serious in nature, particularly in respect of the offence punishable under Section 395 of the tPC. He further submitted that the petitioners, along with the other accused, have committed a grave offence. He also submitted that, at the time of recording the panchanama, specific allegations were made against the petitioners, and their role is also clearly mentioned by the other accused in the panchanama report. Whether the petitioners were physically present at the scene of the offence along with the other accused or not is a disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated by this Court while exercising the powers conferred under Section 528 of the BNSS. Hence, the petitioner cannot seek quashing of the crime on the grounds raised in the present criminal Petition.

#6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the record, it reveals that there are specific allegations in the final report that the petitioners and accused Nos.l,2,4 to 15 have committed the alleged offence i/,/ ,, :,- . f-i.: flri- i.'-'iY: '{<{-i r*ij '?F.. . }: '. :'.,' 4 and escaped from the scene of offence in their respective vehicles. The al)egations levelled against the petitioners are serious in nature. Whether the petitioners were physically present at the scene of the offence along with the other accused or not is a disputed questiorr of fact, which has to adjudicated by the Trial Court after full fledged trial. Hence, this Court does not find any grounds to quash the proceedings against the petitionerVaccused Nos.12 and 14 in S.C.No.tS3 of 2025, on the file of the XV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Ibrahimpatnam while exercising the power conferred U/s.52g of BNSS. 7 . After dictating the order, the leamed counsel for the petitioners sought for dispensing with the presence of petitioners before the Trial Court as the petitioner/accused No.l2 is eking out his livelihood by doing business and petitioner/accused No.l4 is a private employee and their presence on each and every date of adjoumment in the Trial Court is diflicult.

#8. Tak.ing into consideration the peculiar facts and circumsta.nces of the case and also the submissions made by the \ ry-- , f 5 learned counsel for the petitioners, the presence of the petitioners/accused Nos.12 and 14 in S.C.No.l83 of 2025, on the file of the XV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Ibrahimpatnam, is dispensed with, subject to the condition that the petitioners/accused Nos. 12 and t4 shall be represented by their counsel on every date of hearing, unless their presence is specifically required during the course of the trial. [n the event of non-appearance of petitioners/accused Nos. 12 and 14 on any date so fixed by the trial Court, the trial Court shall be entitled to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

#9. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. V.HARI PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// OFFICER I I I To,

#1. The XV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District at lbrahimpatnam

#2. The XV Judicial First Class Magistrate, lbrahimpatnam, Rangareddy District 3. The Station House Officer, Adibatla P.S.,.Rachakonda District 4. One CC to SRl. tvl ATUARNATH Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court at Hyderabad (OUT) 6. Two CD Copies VSM/PSL )w HIGH COURT DATED:1010212026 i ( * I HE 3Tare 12 ttq 'iuq fr {! t P',:T ORDER CRLP.No.1598 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE CRTMINAL PETITION @ ,b aL q o( \