B. ln Harjinder Singh v. The State of punjab and Anotherl, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held th

Petrtion under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the impugned proceedings in C.C. No 1882 of 2024, on the file of the llAdditional Junror Crvjl Judge -cum- II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Rajanna Sircilla . in so far as Petitroners / Accused Nos. 1 & 2 are concerned, in the interest of ;usttce. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim stay of all further proceedings in C.C. No. 1882 of 2024, on the file of the ll Additronal Junior Civil Judge -cum- ll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Rajanna Sircilla., including appearance and attendance of the petitioners / Accused Nos. 1 & 2, pending disposal of the above Criminal petition. 2 ihrs Petrtion coming on for hearrng, upon perusingr Ire lVernorandum of Grounds of Crrm nal Petition and upcn hearing the argur'i. nts oi Sri KARAIV CHENDU KOMIFIEDDY. Acivocate for the Petitioner ar'. Srr .l thender Rao Veeramalla the [)ub] a P.osecutor on behalf of the Respc, C -.nt l'l,r 1 and none apceareC lor the llespondent No.2 The Court made lhe following: ORDER ,;*{ THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2617 o12025 ORDER This criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 in C C. No.1BB2 of 2024 on the file of the ll-Additional Junror Civtl Judge cum ll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajanna Sirici!la, for the offence under Section 384 read with 34 IPC 2 Heard fi/r.Karam Chendu Komtreddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are the officials working in Sales Tax and Comtnercial Tax departments and that they never demanded any amount from the de facto complainant and that they were attending their official duties on the said alleged date of offence. He furthr:r submitted that the petitioners are facing false allegations and it would affect thetr reputation. He further submitted that there is delay in lodging the FlR, that the date of alleged offence is 05.04.2024, while the FIR is registered on 08.04.2024. He further submitted that the statements of the witnesses are recorded on 05.03.2024, which goes to show -I- WEffi \.':'ii;F_': \'1 :.. i Ei' J Ctl P. tlo 2617 or 2i25 that the cornplaint itself is false, and hence pray,.:d to quash the proceedrngs against the petitioners 4 I earned Additional public prosectrttr has subnritted that delay n lodging the FIR cannot be a gro,rrrd to qirash tl.:e proceedings and when the charge sheet is filed rt is for the trial court to decide the case. He further has subrn tted that arnpre material is collected by the prosecution and lrE nce prayed to dismiss the petition 5 6 Per used the record As seen from the record, the petitior er No 1_A1 is an ACTO and the petitioner No.2-A2 is a Junior Asst;tant in the Sales Tax Departnrent The allegations against the pe,tiiioners are that they demanded bribe from the de facto crrrtplarnant while intercepting the auto belonging to the de facto c rrnplainant lt is further alleq:d ihat the de facto complainant is .u nning a Kirana shop in Siricrlla and on OS.O3 2024. he negotiated an auto trolley and sent it to Siridipet to procure Kirana items for his srop While the said auto was returning from Siddpet to Siricilla at about 12 30 hours and when it reached Thangallapally Village, rt ,.vas stopped by a person whl took the driver to two ladies, claimrr g to be the Sale I I I I I I l t' I ,ryr i t I I i 3 ETD,J Crl.P, No.2617 ot 2025 Tax officials. The auto driver has intimated about the same to the de facto complainant and immediately, the de facto complainant went there. The said two persons, who are in a Swift Car, have said that they are Sale Tax officials and asked him to show the documents and GST bills. As he stated that he does not have any such bills, they demanded Rs.20,0001 and stated that they would file a case against him if he fails to pay the said amount. Being afraid of them, the de facto complainant had immediately paid Rs.6,000/-. lnspite of that, they further demanded to pay the remaining money and threatened that they would file a case against him-

7. The record further discloses that the petitioners have filed the extract of the Attendance Register obtained under Right to lnformation Act (RTl). The petitioners have also filed the proceedings dated 05.03.2024 showing that a Dealer Awareness Programme was conducted on 05.03.2024 in which it was shown that the petitioners have attended the said programme. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that both the petitioners were on duty and were attending the Dealer Awareness Programme on the alleged date of offence and thus, the presence of the petitioners at the scene of offence cannot be established. But, the plea of alibi cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings. 4 ETD J Ctl.P. No.2617 ot 2025 B. ln Harjinder Singh v. The State of punjab and Anotherl, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held th:rt the olea of alibr is a matter of defence to be established during th3 trial and not at the stage of summoning. ln the said case, the police accepted the plea of alibi during investigation advanced by the r:s;pondent No.2, r,.rh o produced a parking-lot slip, outpatient record, rre:dical bill and CCTV footage from PGI Chandigarh and the Investigaling Officer has filed a repoft classifying the respondent No.2 as inni)(;ent. Consequenily, only the remaining accused were committ,xj to the Court of Sessions On an application by the public pror;ecutor, the trial court ordered summons to the respondent No.2 urrjer Section 193 of Cr.P C. This order was challenged before the, lligh Court wherein the High Court has quashed the said summoTrs When the matter reached the Apex Court, the Apex Court has set aside the decision of the l-1igh Court to quash the trial court'r; summoning order, emphasizing that untested documentary eviderc: cannot be treated as conclusive at the summoning stage. Thus, t.rr: trial court's orders were restired.

9. Hence, in the light of the above h:ld discussion, the plea of alibi cannot be a ground for quashirl; the proceedings 1 2025 Livelaw (SC) S43 i I i i i I i I .-re. ql ! I I I : -) ETD-J Crl.P. N0.2617 of 2025 Hence, this court deems it appropriate to dispose of the matter and dispense with the attendance of the petitioners before the trial court 10 Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of drspensing wrth the attendance of the petitioners before the trial court provided they are represented by a counsel before the trial court on every date of hearing and shall appear before the trial court whenever their presence is required during the course of trial lVliscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/.M.OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSI TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The ll Additional Junior Civil Judge^-cum- ll Additional Judicial VtagistrJte of First Class Rajanna Sircilla 2 The Station House offtcer,Thangallapalli Police Station, Rajanna Sircilla District 3 One CC to SRI KARAIV CHENDU KOMIREDDY Advocate [OPUC] , #cco,o PUBLIC PRosECUToR Advocate [aRuG] (o\n) 5 Two CD CoPies PFI KIi/PSI, VL HIGH COURT DATED:2510912025 I ORDER CRLP.No.2617 of 2025 o(t i HE sI4 ( o( a A 15 tov 295 * i \ /

1. 1i \ ) \ CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISPOSED oF S)"S"V<* z\$'