The High Court · 2025

'1 . The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High court for the state of Telangana.

2. Duggirala Srinivas Sarma, S/o. Radha Krishna Murthy Aged about 62_years, Occ. Business, R/o. Flat No. 401, Sahiti Lasya Apartment, Arunpdaya Colony, VIP Hills, Bank of Baroda Lane, Madhapur, T5-500082. ... Respondents/De-facto Complainant Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to set aside and quash the docket orders passed in C.C. Sr.No. 4BB3 of 2024 dated 13.02.2025 passed by the ll Additional Junior Chlef Judge cum X Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rangareddy District at Kukatpally. l.A- NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. praying that in the circumstances stated in the [\/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation and effect of docket order dated 13.02.2025 in C.C. S.R. No. 4883 of 2024 passed by ll Additional Junior Chief Judge cum X Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rangareddy District at Kukatpally. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the A/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T Bala Mohan Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Addl. Public ProsecLrtor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEV] CRIMINAL PETITION No.2500 of 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos 3 and 4 seeking to set aside and quash the impugned Docket Order dated 13.02.2025 in C.C.SR.No.4883 of 2024 passed by the learned ll Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-X Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rangareddy District at I Kukatpally (for short 'learned trial Court).

02. Heard Sri T.Bala tVlohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State

03. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned trial Court ought not to have referred the complaint to the Police for registration of crime and investigation. The complainant was not present before the learned trial Cou( on date of passing of impugned order and that no sworn statement was recorded or filed along with the private complaint. There is no report of the concerned Station House Officer of Police Station, as required under the law. Therefore, while praying for setting aside the impugned Order, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision in Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra and othersl wherein the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia at Paragraph Nos.34 and 35 held that "34. ln light of the judicial interpretation and evolution of Secllon 156(3) of the Cr.PC. b'y various decisions of this Courl as dlscussed above, it becomes clear that the changes introduced by Section 175(3) of the BNSS fo the existing scheme of Section 156(3) merely codify the procedural practices and safeguards which have been introduced by judicial declslons aimed at curbing the mlsuse of invocation of powers of a Magistrate by unscrupulous litigants for achieving ulterior motives. 35. Further, by requiring the Magistrate to consider the submlsslons made by the concerned police officer before proceeding to issue directions under Secflon 775f9, ENSS has affixed greater accountability on the police officer responsible for registeing FlRs under Secllon 173. Mandating the Magistrate to consider the submlsslons of the concerned police officer also ersures that the Magistrate applies his mind judicially while considering both the complaint and the submlsslons of the police officer thereby ensuring that the requirement of passing reasoned orders ls complied with in a more effective and comprehensive manner."

04. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State also conceded to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners

05. As seen from the impugned Docket Order, there is no primafacie finding given by the learned trial Court while referring the matter to the Police for investigation. No cogent and t 2025 sCC Online 5C 238 ., 7/ proper reasons were assigned by the learned Magistrate for referring the private complaint to the police for investigation. There is no mention of alleged offences in the impugned Order. Therefore, the impugned Docket Order dated 13.02.2025 in C.C.SR.No.4883 of 2024 passed by the learned ll Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-X Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rangareddy District at Kukatpally, suffers from infirmity and the same is liable to be set aside.

06. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the submissions made by either side, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the learned trial Court to consider the matter afresh, in accordance with law and pass approfriate reasoned order, by following the settled principles of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia in Om Prakash Ambadkar's case (cited supra)

07. With the above observations, this Criminal Petition is disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed ,S+'APT,!?RRX I sd,- A. SR AS ST \ To, 1

2. J. 4 5s /,TRUE COPY// S CTTON OFFICER Additionar Judiciar First crass il:"n,il,l*1'P"x?"',JJlVr",Il?,J,*t11"*'"#'i The Station House Officer' Gachibowli Police Station' Cyberabad' Or.re CC to Sri T Bala Mohan Reddy' Advocate [OPUC] Two ccs to pub,c prosecutor, High court for the state of relangana [our]. Two CD CoPies. 1 HIGH COURT DATED:2010212025 'ffift- ORDER CRLP.No.2500 of 2025 :rc S le ,e C 21 tiiAii Z0Z5 i :'' :_ ).a ,-,L0 , DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION Groql4 *,>_ a-vK I J