ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E v. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No

The State of Telangana,, Through Station House Officer, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, at Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Smt.Vutukuri Jayamma, Wo.V.Balraj, Aged about 46 years, Occ. House Hold, R/o.H.No . 1 -1 0-1 121 81 16714 Chakripuram, Kushaiguda, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT 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 Quash the proceedings in C C.No.105512022 on the file of the Court of the ll Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-ll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at tt/alkajgiri to the extent of the Petitioner is concerned. 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 grant Stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.105512022 on the file of the ll Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-ll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Malkajgiri pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition. -ry This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusin(l the Memorandum of Grounds of Crinrinal Petition and upon hearing th I arguments of Sri LATTUPALLY ANAND, Advocate for the Petitioner a rd Sri. E GANESH, Additional Publrc Prosecutor, on behalf of the ResponCent No.1 and none appeared for Respondent no.2 The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.3236 2025 ORDER: The present criminal petition is hled under Section 528 of BNSS seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against the peti tioner/ accused No.2 in C.C.No.1O55 of 2022 on the file of the learned tl Additionat Junior Civil Judge-cum II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Malkajgiri (for short, 'the trial Court')

2. Tl-re petitioner hcrein is tlte erccusccl No.2 atld rcspondcnt No.2 herein is the complainant beforc the trial Court. For the sake of convenience hereinafter partics are referred to as thc accused and the complainant.

3. The brief lacts ol thc case ilrc that in the 1'ear 2019, the complainant gol acquaintcd l,,ith accused Nos.1 and 2 who used to reside near the house of the complainant and both accused Nos.l and 2 informed that they are running furniture shop and requested the complainant to lencl an amount of Rs. I 3,00,00O/ -. Out of such acquaintance, the complainant lent the said amount in the presence of LWs.2 to 4 and accused Nos.l and 2 executed promissory note and as the complainant and her husband are illiterates, they werc just seeing the amount in ligures, dates and 1 signatllres but thc accuscd Nos.l and 2 bi, terl irrg the advatttage ol their iiLtcracl,, they put thcir sigr-raturcs r rllcrcntll' art<l the r:r>mplainzLnt did not notice thc same. Whcr LIte complainant started dr:manding the accuscd Nos. 1 and 2 to repa,1, thc said armount, thcv started threatening the r:om r ainant witll dire conseqrences and they will file lalse SC & iiT Atrocitics case zrgainst the <:omplainant. Hence, the corrl,lrrinarrtt loclgccl a <:r>mplaint rvitl'r tl're Policc, Kushaiguda, Rachlr:or.rda District, for tlre offt:nces ;runrshable nnder SecLion 42O, 4(it, 464, 465, 5O3, 506, r/u' 2t)(b) IPC.

4. Ctn rcceipt of the above complaint, lhe Il rlrce, Kushaiguda, rt'gis[crcd ..1 ('asL' in Crime No.84 of 202'2, u]r lcr Sccrtiorts 42O, 106, 4e'4,.+6s, 503, 506, r/w 120(b) IPC.

5. Fear<1 krarned counscl appearing lor tl-rc 1 rc t iLioncr/ accuscd No.2 as w'lll as the Iearned Assistant Public ['r'r s,'( tttor appcrrring for respondcnt State. Peruscd the record-

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitilncr u,ould submit that the allcgations levelled against the pctiticnr-'r are farlsc and baseless. The petitioner belongs [o Padrr: shali Caslc and therefor-e, the question of thre atening to impli lLtc in falsc case J undcr [he provisions of SC/ST case does not arise- The statements recorded by the investigating officer under section 161 of Cr.P.C, cven if they are taken .rt their facc value and accepted in their cntirety, d,o not pruna facie constitute anv offence or make out zr case against the petitioner. Since the statement of the complainant are not true ancl it is unbelievable in the eyes of law, Lhe furthcr proceedings before tl're trial Court r,'oulcl abuse Lhc process of law and the charge-shect is liable to be quashcd'

7. Per contra, thc lcartled Assistant Public Prosccutor contended that only after completion of the vehemen tly investigation, the investigating officer has laid the charge sheet belore thc Courl below and the truth or othen,'isc n'ould bc rcvcaled only after lull fledgeci trial Thcrefore, l-rc pra-vs this Court to clismiss the Petition.

8. In this regarcl, it is relevant to rely upon the judgment of the tlon'blc Supreme Court o[ lndia passed in Crl'A No 579 of 2Ol9 dated O2.O4 .2O 19 in the case of Deaendra Prasad' Singh Vs' State oJ Bihar &Anr., as follou's:- "12.5o far as the second ground is concemed, tue are of the uiew thlt the High Court u'hile hearing the application under Section 482 of the Cr-P.C. had no I juisdiclion to ctppreciate tlTe statement oJ the tL,trre.s.se-s anal rc(\)r(.t (t .lltrdtrtg thttt there uere incollslsre,t -irr.s irt therr .sl.leln(,/rl.s artd, thereJbre, lhere utas no pit,j t .frrcte case rnoclc oul eqainst responclent No.2. In our uietu -ltis ctx_tlcl lrc clon<: orrltl in the, trial tuh e deciding fhe is.sue-s ,t, th., nle rds or/ entl l)Lt tltc Appellate Coun ruhile dcciclint ,lte ctppectl ttri:;int1 <tuL ol' thc JitLttt orrler passed. bg the T,,ri (-:oud bLtt rtol lrr Sr,,rliorr 482 Cr.p.C. proceedings. I .3 In uicru of tlrc foreqoinq drscus.siorr. t'e ullou: the apl)ae' , <at rtsid.e the intpuqned order ancl t r:store lhc rtJit,c:n cttluntatl corry:laint case fo its oiginal llt:.lor l:teinq pro''t c,1c11 with on. m.ents in accrtrdance tuith lctt,; . (). Rcct:rrtl.y, thc Hon blc Supreme Court ol inclilr dealing in I.cspcct o[ thc vct-v same issue in Crl.A.No.15? 2 of 2019 datcd 17 .1O.2O19 in thc case ot' Centrq.l Bureau of Invstiga.tion Vs. Aruind Khanna, \,\,hcr.in. il has been heid as fol ,ru s: '' I 9. Alier pentsing the impuqnecl or( .r u tl.j on lrcoirtc lhc -strDrni.ssions macle bi1 the lear r,,d serlror c()u,r-scr-s on ltotLt sides, ue are of the uielu tl.ro,t t,1 . itlpuqtrcd ot'dct 1,11ss211 lry tiLe Hryh Court is nor susaal ,obla. In a pctihotl Jilcd Lrnder Section 4g2 of Cr.p.C., the Hicl i (-)ourt h_as reco,tlc 1 .fitLtlurgs ott seuerrtL dispute(l facts c.n(1 ,tlt.)Lued Llrc pctitton. Dektrce of the accused is to be ,.t.sLed aJter apptac tlute lhe euidence during trial. The uery _ti1q1 thot the Hiqh Cour1, irr thi.s case, u)ent into the most m.in tte detatls, on t,trc ollegc irJns mad"e bg the appellant_C-B,. QrtLl the clefettcc ltut-forth b11 the respondent, led us to u cortclusron I 5 tlrut the High Coutl hos exceeded its power, while exercising its inherent juisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

20. In our uieu.t, the assessment made bg the High Court ot this stage, tuhen the matter hc.s been taken cognizance by the CompetenL Coutl, is completelg incorrect cLnd uncalLed -for." 1O. Fur[her the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also held in the orcler clated 02.12.2019 in Crl.A.No.1817 of 2019 in the case of M.Jaganthi Vs. K.R,Meenakshi & cutr, as follows "It is too late in the dcty to seek reference to ang authoitg Jbr the proposition that uhtle inuoking Lhe potuer under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing a compleint or ct charqe, the Couft shoutd not embark upon an enquiry into the ualidity of the euidence ouailable. All that the Court should see is as to tuhether there ctre ollegotlons in the conrpla[nt uhich form the basis Jbr the ingredients that constitute certain offerrces complained of. The Courl mag also be entitled to see (i) u.thether tl'Le preconditions requisite for toking cognizance haue been complied u-tlth or not; and (ii) uhether the allegations contaiied in the complctint, euen if accepted in entiretA, tuould not constitute the offence ctlleged.

13. A look at the complaint filed by the appeltant tuould show that the appellont had lncorporated the ingredients necessary for prosecuting the respondents Jbr the - * of.r""t alleged. The\ question whether the appeltant u,tilL be 6 able '.o proue the a egattons irt a manner l: xttun. l-o lanu tuoulct. ctrise on[A at a later stage. 1 1. The above judgments are squarely appli:able lo this case and as s uch, the points raiscd by the pe I tloncr are ln jxcd question ol facts .',r,hich cannot be considered i:r a quash petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C/528 ol BNSS.

12. [;r vicr, ol the discussion made herein be fbrc, this Court. is nol inclinr:cl lo quash thc proccedir.rgs in C.C.lI r.1055 of 2022 on the frlc ol the learned II Additional Junior ( )rvi1 .Judgc-cum-Il Additional Judicial Magislrate of First Class rt Malkajgiri. The petiLioncr,l:rccuscd No.2 is at liberty to raise all he grottnds bcforc the tri:rl (]ourt. The personal appcarance of tli: petitioner before the trial Court is dispensecl with and he sha11 b -: represented by a counsel. F'urther the petitioner shall appear be Irre the trial Court as and rvhcn his presence is requircd.

13. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disp rscd of. Hou,ever, the appearance r-rf the petitioner / accused No.!) is dispensed with unlcss an,:l until it is required by the trial Court .,t*X&*,,.t' Aretltl**ty '7 Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- A. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGTSTRAR @ SECTION OFFICER To, The ll Additional Junior.Civil Judge First Class at Malkalgtrt' cum-ll Additional Judicial lvlagistrate of 2 3 4 5 TheXlXAdditionalMetropolitanMagistrate,CyberabadatMalkaigiri: The Station House Officer' Kushaiguda P'S'' Rachakonda one CC to SRI LATTUPALLY ANAND Advocate [OPUC] TwoCCstoPUBL|CPROSECUToRHighCourtfortheStateofTelangana

6. Two CD CoPies MKN/gh f{- HIGH COURT DATED:2310612025 ORDER CRLP.No.3236 of 2025 ,, _- :-! t'. o^j'.i 0 4 CCI 7|'|2r \:1.,.'-. I ! I t I i DISPOSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION 1 ^I cns"J w_ 61\"