The High Court · 2025

The petition/Appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. M A tVujeeb Advocate for the Petitione(s) and Mr. E.Ganesh, Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad on behalf of State. The Court made the following ORDER . .1t':'... : 'f .. *:7 ./ THE HONOURABLE SRT JUSTTCE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.1754 OF 2O2l ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petrtioners/ accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.5349 of 2O2O on the file of the learned VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad (for short, "the trial Court") for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C

2. Heard Mr.M.A.Mujeeb, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 1-State

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 02.11.2O19 respondent No.2 had filed a complaint before the concerned Police Station stating that, at about O7:0O hours when, he along with his sister namely Karya, were going tb Alwal for her examination on his bike bearing No.AP l IAE 4621, he tried to overtake one Travels bus bearing No.TS 12 UA 5330 from left side. But due to damaged road, his bike skid down and he fell towards the right side of the vehicle. Suddenly, the Travels bus came in a rash and negligent manner and took the bus over his z sister's head, due to which, she received injuries on her head; that he tried to call his friend and 1OB Ambulance and on examination it was found that his sister died. Basing on the said facts, the present crime is registered against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 3O4 A of I.P.C.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there is no oral and documentary evidence to show that the petitioners have committed the offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C. and that they have been falsely implicated them in the present crlme. Therefore, he submits that continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is abuse of process of lau, and seeks to allow the Criminal Petition

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the matter requires to be tried and only upon conciusion of a full-fledged trial, the truth comes to 1ight. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss this Criminal Petition

6. A perusal of report dated 02.11.2019 pertaining to the Inquest conducted by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station Chanderghat, over the dead body of G.Karya, shows that her death occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. Further, the Post Mortem Examination report of the I I I I i I deceased shou,s that her death was due to multiple injuries, crush injury on her head and face, which occurred due to rash and negiigent driving of the driver of the vehicle. The investigation also revealed that on O2.ll.2ol9 when LWl, along with his sister, r.r,as going to Alwal for her exam on his bike, tl-ren they reached Suprabath Hotel, Nalgonda X Road and that at about 7:3O hrs, LW1 tried to overtake the travels bus, then, suddenly his bike got skid and they both fell down towards the right side of his vehicle; petitioner No.1 drove the bus in rash and negligent ( manner and took the bus over the head of the deceased, due to which the deceased received injuries on her head and died; LW1 also received injuries on his hands. Further, petitioner No.1 admitted the guilt and confessed to have committecl the offence. Therefore, in order to determine the negligence or culpability of the offence, this Court is of the view that the matter requires a full-fledged trial in so far as petitioner No.1 is concerned. 7 . However, since the charge sheet is silent with regarcl to the guilt of petitioner No.2 and as there is no direct participation of petitioner No.2 in the commission of alleged offence, this Court is of the view that this Criminal Petition in so far petitioner No.2 is concerned stands quashed. 4 r

8. Accordingly, this Criminai Petition, so far petitioner No.1 is concerned, stands dismissed; so far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, the proceedings in C.C.No.5349 of 2O2O on the file of the learned VIII Additional Chief Metropoiitan Magistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad stands quashed

9. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is partiy allowed. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. MOHD. ISMAIL STANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To '1 . The Vltl Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally Hyderabad 2. The Station House Officer, Chaderghat Police Station, Hyderabad. 3. One CC to Sri M A Mujeeb, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies PSKigh eY HIGH COURT DATED:1310212025 ORDER chlp.no.1754 of 2021 --a ..4,',)? ' ttE S t.,,a-,\ v,<.' "($' (' c IJ I e 0 5 itAY zfifi ) Sr)ATCirl-.- PARTLY ALLOWED THE CRIMINAL PETITION pt q