The High Court · 2025

3. D. Srinivasa Reddy, S/o D. Komara Reddy, Aged about 55 years, Occ. Examiner. High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT 4. The State of Telangana, Represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, At Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all and further proceedings in C.C. No.406 of 2017 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad, including appearance of the Petition ersiAccused no.1 and 2, Pending disposal of the Criminal Revision Case. Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Harinadh Nidamanuri Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2: Sri D. Y. L. N. Charyulu The Court made the following: ORDER AND '7 HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.169 of 201'.5 ORDER: This Criminal Revrsion Case is filed under Sec'rr,n 438 and 442 of BNSS by the petitioners/accused Nos,1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings in Crl.lVl P No 685 of 2023 in () C,No406 of 2017 on the file of Chief Judicial [/lagistrate, Hyderilirad against the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr N Hari Nadh, learned counsel for tlrr: petitioners. lVr.D.Y.L.N Charyulu, learned counsel for responder.t Nos.1 to 3 and Mr.l\rl Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additro ral Public Prosecutor for respondent-State and perused the rec trd.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners :r.e President and Secretary of A P High Court Employees Mutua 1, Aided Co- operative Housing Society Ltd Petitioner No.1 st;r,-led making constructron of an office room in the property alrctted to the society and he was informed that the same was dernolished on

13.03.2017. On 14.03 2017 he lodged a complairrt before the SHO. Gachibowli alleging that the respondent Nos . o 3 went to the site of the society and removed the structures arrc threatened the workers. Basing on the complaint given by the accused, the SHO regrstered the same as Cr No.'l 29 of 2017 for the offences 2 punishable under seclions 427 . 447 and 506 rlw 34 of lPC. After investigation referred the crime as "mistake of fact" and submitted final report that the Municrpal Commissioner demolished structures in the site Further, the respondents filed a private complaint on 23.09 2017 under section 200 Cr.P.C for the offences under section 120-8, 192 read with 193 of lPC, 199 read with 193 of lPC, 500 and 506 of IPC and section 38 of lVutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act agalnst the petrtioners stating that a malicious complaint was lodged against them by the petitioners making false allegations that they threatened the workers and challenged to remove the structures existing on the site and the trial Court has numbered the said complaint as C C.No.406 of 2017, whereby the petitioners filed for discharge before the trial Court and the same was dismissed by the trial Court. Challenging the said order, the petitioners filed this crrminal revision case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Magistrate erred in dismissing the discharge petition filed by the petitioners even though there is no prima facie case made out to proceed further against the petitioners The learned Magistrate ought to have seen that as per the contents of the private complaint and sworn statements recorded, the petitioners are 3 president and secretary of their mutually aided society and to protect the interest of the members of the society trr:y lodged a report against the respondents and mere lodging ret'crt with good faith and interest of others is not an offence unde- section 500 IPC and this case falls under the exception 8 and 9 rlf section 499 of lPC. Even all the allegations mentioned in the prlrate complaint and sworn statements of witnesses are taken on :l'e face of it, there is no prima facie case made out against the petitroners to proceed further. Further the learned Magrstrate c'ught to have seen that for launching prosecution under section 'l 93 to 196 and 199 of lPC, the procedure contemplated under sec.ion 195(1) (b) (i) Cr P C. has to be followed. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings agatnst the petitioners

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for tlre respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that there are specific allegatic ns against the petrtioners and the truth or otherwise would ccne out only after conducting trial by the concerned Couft arrc it is not a fit case for qLtashment of proceedings against ttrer petitioners Hence prays to dismiss the criminal revision case 4

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also prayed to dismiss the revision stating that it is not a fit case for quashment of proceedings.

7. ln view of the submissions, as there are disputed question of facts in the matter, whrch are triable rssues in nature, thrs Court is of the view that this case is not a fit case for quashment of proceedings and opines that no interference is required at this stag e

8. ln the said circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there are no grounds to interfere and the criminal revision case is liable to be dismissed. However, the drrection passed by thrs Court, as per the order dated 28.04.2025. dispensing with the personal presence of the petitioners/accused Nos.'l and 2 in C.C No.406 of 2017 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad subject to the condlttons that the petrtioners' appearance through their counsel for all the adjournments before the trial Court and their personal appearance as and when directed by the trial Court and any lapse in abiding the above conditions would automatically annul this order, shall continue tilt disposal of the C.C.No.406 of 2017 before the trial Court. ?l 5

9. With the above observations. this Criminal Revis;ion Case is dism issed Pending mrscellaneous applications. rf anv shall stand closed. SD/. K. AMMAJI S STANT REGISTRAR AF //TRUE COPY// t SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 4 VH The Chief Judicial l,4agistrate, Hyderabad One CC to Sri Harinadh Nidamanuri. Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri D. Y. L. N. Charyulu, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED: 1710912025 I I I I i I i I I I 1 I I I I ! I I I I I ORDER GRLRC.No.169 of 2025 25 0[l 16 : ,r :-/: -JP, r -: \ )- -r7 DISMISSING THE CRL.R.C. u / /1.