Further learned counsel cited authority in Naini Rajender Reddy v. State of Telangana

Petition 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 quash the Charge Sheet in C.C. No. 352 of 2022, on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Vemulawada, Rajanna Sircilla District, as against the petitioners/Accused No's. 2 and 3. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 482 oI 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 of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners/Accused No's. 2 and 3 in C.C. No. 352 ol 2022, on the file of Honble Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Vemulawada, Rajanna Sircilla District, and to This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of i MR. K.Venumadhav, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Jithender Rao veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor, High court for the state of relangana, Hyderabad on behalf of the State / Respondent No.1 . The Court made the following: ORDER: THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.2689 o12024 I ORDER: Heard Mr, K. Venumadhav, learned counsel for petitioners/ accused Nos.2 and 3 and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1- State.

2. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Ior short, 'CrPC') with a prayer for quashment of proceedings in C.C.No.352 ot 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Vemulawada, Rajanna Sircilla District, 3. The petitioners are arraigned as accused Nos.2 and 3 for the offences under Section 411 of lndian Penal Code (for short, .IPC')

4. The prosecution case in brief is that the respondent No.2/de faclo complainant lodged police reporl dated 04.09.2021 that on 03.09.2021 when she went to her in-laws house at Shabashpally and at 8 p.m., and thereafter to her sister's house by locking her house and when returned at about 3.30 a.m. she found the doors of the house and almirah were broke open and t I I 2 NTR,J CRLP 2689 2024 found one pair of gold ear studs 6 grams, two gold r ngs 6 grams, gold pusthelu 6 grams, in all '18 grams worth Rs.40,0001 and four pattu sarees, one mixi, one rice cooker worth Rs 5,0001 were stolen. Upon report the police concerned registered a case in Crime No.406 o'f 2021 for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 IPC and after investigation filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 by showing the petitioners as accusecl Nos.2 and 3 under Section 411 IPC

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that as per the charge sheet the police had apprehended the accused No.1 and upon his statement recovered four silk sarees, one mixi and one rice cooker under mediator's report and came to know about the involvement of accused Nos.2 and 3 as receivers of stolen property. Therefore, except the alleged confessional statement of the accused No.1, there is no other material for the prosecution to show that the petitioners are in any way involved in the offence as admittedly there is no recovery from the petitioners. As such, continuing the proceedings only basing on the statement of a co-accused to say that the petitioners are receivers of the property would be abuse of process ,lf law 'l ) r 3 NTR,J CRLP 2689 2024 6 Further learned counsel cited authority in Naini Rajender Reddy v. State of Telangana - 2021 LawSuit(TS) 196 and pleaded that, in regard to legal validity of co-accused statement it has been held tha! though voluntary confessional statement said to have given before the police during investigation by the accused it is inadmissible in evidence under Section 25 of the lndian Evidence Act. ln addition it is settled proposition that statement of co-accused is weak piece of evidence and recording conviction solely on such material is improper. Therefore pleaded that in the absence of tenable material against the petitioners, continuance of proceedings would be abuse of process, hence prayed for quashment of the proceedings.

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the role of the petitioners as receivers of stolen property came to light on the statement of the accused No.1 from whom some of the stolen properties were recovered. However, the endeavour of the investigating agency to verify the fact has not materialized as the petitioners are at large- ln such circumstance, though the petitioners are referred to as accused Nos.2 and 3 the charge --q!eet has been filed against accused No.1 alone and sought for I I 4 NTR,J CRLP 2689 2024 non-bailable warrants (NBWs) from the Court concerned and as on date the warrants are pending. Therefore, quashment of proceedings at this stage would be improper.

8. 9. I have perused the materials on record. ln the above noted set up, the point for determination would be whether the proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed? '10. Admittedly, the role of the petitioners came to light as per the statement of admission of accused No 1 that the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 are the persons rrvho received the stolen gold ornaments and the effort of reaching petitioners for verification remained futile as they are absconding. Additionally, non-bailable warrants are pending against them. This factual position is explaining that the investigation against the petitioners is yet to be concluded and the pr:titioners are avoiding judicial process. At this juncture, drawing conclusion that except for the statement of accused No.1/co-accused the investigating agency can not make out any legally acceptable evidence against the petitioners would be premature. On the top of it, the petitioners are avoiding the judicial process and the non- bailable warrants are pending against them. ln these \ \ \ ,l 5 NTR,J cRLP_2689_2024 circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that recording a conclusive finding would be wholly unjust. Notably as on the date the calendar case proceedings are not against the petitioners as the charge sheet is not filed against them and the quashment would scuttle the process of investigation. Further though the offence is of the year 2021 as the investigation is said to have been pending with the investigating agency for want.of availability of the petitioners. Therefore even mere non taking of cognizance against the petitioners till the date cannot be considered as a ground of limitation as Section 470 (b) Cr.P.C./516(4Xb) of BNSS, 2023 excludes time where the accused avoided arrest or concealing himself/themselves. Thus, this Court finds no justification in the prayer. Accordingly this petition is liable to be dismissed.

11. ln the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. i I I I I I I i I To, //TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER '1 . The Judicial Magiskate of First Class at Vemulawada, Rajanna Sircilla District,

2. The Station House Officer, Vemulawada Town Police Station, Rajanna Sircilla District.

3. One CC to Sri. K Venumadhav, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies. // HIGH Court DATED:0310412025 ORDER GRLP.No.2689 ot 2O24 o " . iir- ir i..i --) .) ) 2 4 JUt{ ZE G ( C) * oIs ,/tr1 c.i EO 4 I / , / DISMISSED THE CRIMINAL PETITION