High Court · 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 call for the records pertaining to Crime No. 80 of 2025, Dt. 17 -02-2025 on the file of Allapur Police Station, Cyberabad and quash the same in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 2OF 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 stay all further proceedings including arrest of the petitioner in Crime No. 80 of 2025, Dt. 17-02-2025 on the file of Allapur Police Station, Cyberabad, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition before this Hon'ble Court. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri BARLA MALLESH YADAV, Advocate for the Petitioner and SRI E GANESH, the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: OROER ! I I I THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE E.V.VE|]IUGOPAL CRIMINAL PEf,ITION No.2686 Ot 2o.25 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed seeking t.r quash the proceedings against the petitioner/Accused Nc 2 in Crime No.8O of 2025, dated 17.O2.2O25 on the hle of ,\ lapur Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the ofll: rces under Sections 143, L44 of BNS, Sections 3,4 ard 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: Mr. Shaik Moinuddin, Sub-Inspector of Police, Allapur Police Station, while discharging his ofhcia1 duties, received credible information tl: lt certain individuals were operating a br tthel at VivekananddrrAgtr, Allapur. Acting on this ir Lformation, he made a General Diary (GD) entry arr I obtained Proceedings No. 36I/ACP-KP/Cybl2O:Z i,

17.O2.2O25, from the Assistant Commissionr r of police, Kukatpally Division. He then secured the l resence of mediators, namely Ejjapu Ganesh and Il eeemreddy - Page 2 of6 Venugopal Reddy, as well as members of tJ e Cues Team-MS Anjaneyulu and NS Suresh, SPOs.

3. Subsequently, a sea-rch was conducted at House No. 14-20-677 /2L31 A, Vivekanandanagar, Allapur. At tJre location, one Sayyapuju Jaya Teja Varma and Venkata Sattrya Thrinadha Sita Rarna Krishna Chiranjeevi Varma (A4) opened the door. A woman named Shima was also found in their custody, and her presence was secured with the assistance of a woman police officer. Upon inquiry, ,A.4 stated that he was merely a customer and alleged that Al to ,A.3 were operating the brothel. Based on a complaint hled in this regard, Crime No. 80 of 2025 was registered.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that tl-e petitioner has been arrayed as A,2 solely based on the statement of the victim. He contends that the petitioner has no role in the alleged offence and that any confession made before a police ofhcer is inadmissible under Section 25 of the tndian Evidence Act. He further Page 3 of6 argues that the petitioner is being falsely ir rplicated at the instance of A4, a software employee wi', 1 whom the petitioner sha-res strained relations. The pet tioner, also a software employee, seeks the indulgr:r ce of this Honble Court to quash the proceedings agan st him.

5. On the other hand, the learned Assir tant Public Prosecutor, upon instructions, submits t rat despite efforts by the respondent/police, tJre petitiolr :r has been absconding since the registration of the :rime. It is submitted that the offences alleged are purr'shable with imprisonment of seven to ten yea-rs. The inr rlvement of the petitioner has been stated by the victirr , as well as A 1. Unless the petitioner cooperates with the investigation, the truth cannot be ascertaint r . Hence, he seeks dismissal of the petition.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for tl e petitioner I \ and .the learned Assistant Public Prosec-tor for the \ respondent/State, and after perusal of the :ecord, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ci se is still at I i I t I I Page 4 of6 tl.e preliminar5r investigation stage. Therefore, interference with the investigation at this juncture is not warranted. However, since the petitioner has expressed his innocence, the truth can be ascertained only after a tJrorough investigation by the respondent/police.

7. In view of the above, this Criminal petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent/police to proceed with the investigation in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar a. State of Bihoirt, without taking any coercive steps again"t tfr. petitioner, including affest. The respondent/police shall complete the investigation and frle an appropriate final report, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is also directed to cooperate 1 2014 (8) SCC 273 Page 5 of6 with the investigation to enable a logical () )nclusion of the matter. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitio: ls, if *y, pending, shall stand dismissed. //TRUE COPY// S,l - SRI MOHD ISMAIL I] :PUTY REGISTRAR SEcloru oFFrcER To,

1. The I Additional Junior Civil Judge cum Xll Additional M( :ropolitan fvlagistrate, tVledchal-lr/alkajgiri District at Kukatpally.

2. The Station House Officer, Allapur Police Station, Kukatl ally, Medchal, t\i'lalkajgiri Dist.

3. One CC to SRI BARLA IUALLESH YADAV Advocate [Crl 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana, 'UCl at Hyderabad. [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies t-/ry,, GR HIGH COURT DATED:04/0812025 ORDER CRLP.No.2686 of 2025 t:\iI T t (l ) !rl t i) \t- .-:l I 'l C, .l: t DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITIC N \ b