High Court · 2025

by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at

2. Nludimyala @ Valasingam lvlounika, D/o. Late [Vludimyala Lingaiah, Wo. Valasingam Shouriprasad, Age 36 Years, Occ - Advocate, R/o. H,No. 8-20/1, Narsingi Village, Rajendranagar [VIandal, R,.R District ...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the Order in Crl.lrI.P.No. '1439 of 2018 in C.C No. ',l32 of 2017 Dated 0110312019 on the file of the XVI Addl. Metropotitan Magistrate Cyberabad (cum ll Addl. Junior Civil Judge, R.R District at Rajendranagar) against the Petitioner or Accused No.2. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2019 Petilion 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 Stay all further proceedings in Crl.M.P.No. 1439 of 2018 in C.C No. 132 of 2017 Daled 01103120'19 on the file of the XVt Addt. Metropotitan Magistrate Cyberabad (cum Il Addl. Junior Civil Judge, R.R District at Rajendranagar) pending disposal of the Criminal Petition. l I I l.A. NO: 2 OF 2019 Between: Mudimyala @ Valasingam Mounika, Dio. Late Mudimyala Lingaiah, Wo. Valasingam Shouriprasad, Age 36 Years, Occ - Advocate, R/o. H.No. 8-20l'1 , Narsingi Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R,.R District .._PET|TiONER/ACCUSED AND

1. Padamati Narsinga Rao, S/o. Late Ramaiah, Aged about 52 Years, Occ - Pvt Employee, R/o. H. No. 1-1 10, Pupallguda, Village, Rajedrangar Mandal, R.R District, T.S 2. The State Hyderabad of Telangana, rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at ...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the fi/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order granted in lA.No. 1 ol 2019 in Crl.P.No. 1474 of 2019 dated 1310312019 in the interest of justice. i This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitton and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A. Venkataswamy Yadav, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.2 and none appeared for the Respondent No.1. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1474 OF 2019 ORDER: This Criminai Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash proceedings in C.C.No.132 of 2017, on the file of XVI . Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad-Cum-Il Additional Junior Civil Judge, R.R.District at Rajendrangar. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 448,427,504 and 506 ofIPC.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. Perused the record.

3. A criminal complaint was filed by the 2.d respondent before the Police resulting in charge sheet against other accused. However, the name of this petitioner was deleted. Aggrieved by the Police deleting the name of this petitioner, protest petition was filed by the 2"d respondent/ defacto complainant.

4. Learned Magistrate passed a detailed order on O1.03.2019 taking cognizance against the petitioner herein for the above said oflences ,r' ,/ 2

5. The allegation made against the petitroner is that there were familv disputes. The petitioner herein ent.ered into the house and assaulted defacto complainant rvith chappal. The complaint v,,as earlier filed by the husband of the defacto compiainant. 6 . Learne d Magistrate found that two persons have trespassed into the house of defacto complainant and beat them with hands and pima facie case was made or-rt

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that firstly, the N{agistrate taking cognizance is barred by Limitation under Sect.ion 468 of Cr.P.C. Secondly, the defacto complainanl is in the habit of lodging complaints against her own family members. She had lodged four complaints, two civil and two crimrnal complaints. The incident happened 1n between four rvalls. The petitioner and another trespassed into house and assaulted 2.d respondent herein and her husband informed the same to the Poiice. Adequate reasons are not given in the charge sheet as to why the name of the petitioner was removed from array of accused. J B. Once the protest petition is filed, it is for the Magistrate Court to cause enquiry under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before taking cognizance. Learned Magistrate having considered the statement of defacto complainant and the narration of her husband the manner in which the incident happened, has taken cognizance against the petitioner. There are no grounds to set aside the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance. A11 the grounds raised regarding 2"a respondent herein in the complaints filed can be agitated before the Court

9. The provision under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. does not apply in the present case. After the incident happened, the complaint was liled with the Police within time. The petitioner cannot plead Limitation in the present case, u,hen the cognizance was taken on the protest petition, after investigation, AS already stated that complaint was filed within time.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shatl stand close //TRUE COPY// Sd/- T. JA ASREE ASSISTANT RE ISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The XVI Addl. IVetropolitan fvlagistrate R.R District at Ralendranagar 2. The Station House Oficer, Narsingi Police Station, Cyberabad i I I I To. (

3. One CC to Sri A. Venkataswamy Yadav, Advocate {OPUCI 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

5. Two CD copiesw \ HIGH COURT DATED:1 210212025 l I I I I ORDER CRLP.No.1474 ot 2019 ,,-E sTA t.l3 ( \. 1ii APR zIE a \ t t sParcB Dismissing the Criminal Petition @ q qlel