High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad, (Through SHO Nadipet PS). BhupathiNarasimha Murthy, S/o. Bhaskara Rao, aged 37 years, Komaragiri Patnam Village, Allavaram Mandal, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh State. . ...RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO.COMPLAINANT Petition under Seclion 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 the proceedings in FIR No. 49 of 2025 on the file Nandipet PS, Nizamabad District dated. 25.02.2025 and quash the same, in the interest of Justice, l.A. NO: 2 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 stay of all proceedings in FIR No. 49 of 2025 on the file Nandipet PS, Nizamabad District dated. 25.02.2025 pending disposal of the quash petition, in the interest of J ustice, This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri CHATLA MADHU ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Ms. Shalini Sakena Asst Pubirc Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No1. and Ms.Arshiya Begum Advocate for the Respondent No2. The Gourt made the following: ORDER er-7-;aw / THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3685 of 2o25 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed praying this Court to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners/ accused Nos l to 4 in FIR.No.49 of 2025 on the hle of the Nandipet Police Station' Nizamabad District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 115(21, 296(b), 351(2) read with 3(5) of BNS' and Sections rO,24E,A,3(l)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act' The brief facts of the case are that the 2"'l

2. respondent/ complainant alleged that he had an acquaintance with tJle accused for the past five years, during which the accused had agreed to send him abroad and collected a total amount of Rs.15,24,00O/- in various installments, including Rs' 6,00'000/- on 22.12.2021, Rs. 1,90,000/ - on O2.O2'2O22, arrd other amounts on different dates. It is stated that despite returning Rs 1O,O0'0OO/-' the accused failed to pay the balance amount of Rs'5,24,00O/- and instead issued three cheques of Rs. 1,9O,000/- each, which were later cancelled. The complainant further alleged that on 20 'O2 '2021' at 4:OO PM, he and his companion visited the house of accused' where they were physically abused, and the accused pressed the neck of complainant and beat him with hands, and was also subjected to caste-based slurs. It was alleged that the associates of accused 2 threatened the complainant and obtained his signatures on blank papers. Based on the complaint, the police registered an FIR against the petitioners lor the offences as alleged. Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal Petition is hled.

3. Heard Sri Chatla Madhu, learned counsel for petitioncrs, Smt Shalini Saxena, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent No. I - State, and Smt Arshiya Begum, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for ltetitioner contended that the cornplaint is inherently flawed and suffers from several discrepancics. He submitted that the delay of 5 days in lodging the report/ complaint raises serious doubts about its veracit5r. The atleged incident occurred on 2OIO2/2O25 at 4:OO PM, whereas, the complaint u,as filed on 25/0212025 at 19:OO hours. Ile contended that the complaint is filed with the intention of exerting pressure on the petitioners to settle civil disputes, specifically the alleged balance amount of Rs. 5,24,000/-. He averred that the contents of the complaint reveal a money transaction betu,een the parties, and the allegations of physical abuse and caste-based slurs appear to be an afterthought. The petitioners had already returned Rs. 10,00,0O0/- out of the total amount of Rs. 15,24,000 l-, and it is improbable that they would resort to such extreme behavior over a disputed amount. +1r*!: 3

5.lnaddition,learnedcounselforpetitionerssubmittedthatthe complaint is an abuse of process of law, hled with the intention of securing the arrest of the petitioners and cancelling the cheques issued by the lst petitioner. The allegations of pressing the neck and beating are not supported by any medical evidence, and the delay in hling the complaint further raises doubts about the credibility of these allegations. He lamented that Sections invoked in the FIR have no application to the facts of the case, as Section 318(4) pertains to punishment for cheating, but there is no element o[ cheating in this case, as the petitioners had aiready returned a signihcant portion of the amount ; Section 115(2) deals with voluntarily causing hurt, but there is no injury or evidence to support this allegation ; Section 296(b) and Section 351(2) are also inapplicable, as there is no evidence of criminal intimidation or any other offense. Therefore, he prayed this Court to allow the criminal petition, quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioners. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor'

6. appearing for respondent No. 1, vehemently opposed the submissions made by iearned counsel for petitioners, and contended that basing on the complaint received to Police by respondent No 2, the petitioners were implicated in the case for the offences as alleged' He averred that the matter requires detailed investigation, therefore, prayed this Court to dismiss the Criminal PeLition. l i I I I I t I I I I t I i I I I I I I I I i I 4

7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, submitted that the FIR arose from a genuine grievance wherein Respondent No.2 was promised overseas employment in exchange for Rs.15,0O,O00/ , of which only Rs. 1O,0O,00O/- had been returned. She asserted that cheques issued for the balance were subsequently cancelled, compounding the financial loss and mental disrress, and upon confronting thc petitioners <>n 20-02-2025, Respondent No.2 was allegedly assaulted and subjected to caste-based abuse, with the intcntion to humiliate him on account of his Schedulcd Castc iclentity. He averred that the Meclcal evidence reportedly corroborated visible injuries from the incident. That being so, the respondent had immediately approached the police, and FIR was registered without material delay. She averred that the abuse had becn integral to the assault and not incidental, thereby, attracting offenccs under both IPC and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. She emphasized that the FIR disclosed cognizable offences and met the parantt:ters set by the Hon'blc Supremc Court in State of Haryana vs Bhajan La1, warranting investigation, rather than premature quashment. 'lherefore, prayed this Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition, as the same lacks merits.

8. Having regard to rival submissions madr:, and on going rhrough the material placed on record, it is noted that thcre are specific set of allegations against the petitioner No.1/accused No.1, stating that he rcceived huge amounts and though he repaid a sum of amount, for thc left out amount he issued cheques which were i I I I i ;"r#''7 I I I i I I : I cancelled. The complainant further alleged that on 2O.O2.2O21, at 4:00 PM, he and his companion visited his house, and the accused pressed the neck of complainant and beat him with hands, and was also subjected to caste-based slurs. However, it is seen that there are no specihc allegations against the other petitioner Nos.2 to 4/accused Nos.2 to 4. 9 In view of the above discussion, Lhis Criminal Petition is partly allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner Nos.2 to 4/accused Nos.2 to 4, in FIR-No.49 ot 2025 on the file of the Nandipet Police Station, Nizamabad District, are hereby quashed, while permitting the prosecution to proceed further against the pelitioner No. 1/accused No. 1, in accordance with law Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed SD/- K.BHAVANI SWAMY ASSITANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Station House Officer, Nandipet PS, Nizamabad District 2. One CC to Ms.Arshiya Begum Advocate for the Respondent No2 3. One CC to SRl. CHATLA MADHU Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRl. LEGAL AID Advocate [OPUCI 5. Two CC to SRl. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Advocate IOPUC] Two CD Copies AG/PSL '"-,,.* . --;fl HIGH COURT DATED:0810712025 3 ins t1 Io 2 5 itjl 2ri5 IATC * .i ) ) 'r * ORDER CRLP.No.3685 of 2025 CRLP IS PARTLY ALLOWED