High Court of Telangana · 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 quash the Charge Sheet in CC No 75912024 (Main CC No 1363/2015) on the file of the XV Additional Judge cum XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2025 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 stay of all further proceedings in CC No 72912024 (Main CC No 1363/2015) on the file of in" Xv Additional Judge cum XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri lmmaneni Rama Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondents. The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE E.V. VENITIGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION Nq.3773 ot 2oitti ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 528 of Erharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS, 2023') seaking quashment of proceedings in CC No.759 ot 2024 (Main CC No.1 163 of 2015) on the file the learned XV Additional Judge --cum- XIX r\dditional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad (for short 't,te trial Court') against the petitioner-accused No.2.

2. Heard Mr.Rama Rao lmmaneni, leamed counsr:l for petitioner and Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Proseculo" appearing for respondents.

3. Petitioner herein is accused in CC No.759 of 2C24 and accused No.2 in CC No.1363 of 2015. The case against occUr)€:d No.2 therein was split up and numbered as CC No.759 of 2024 as NBW pending against him since long time.

4. The brief facts of the case are that on lr).10.2015 the complainant lodged a complaint stating that on the sarnr: day at 06.00 hours the bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 4295 of Falaknuma rlepot, when the bus reached upper Tankbund, at 07.f 0 hours, two t'ersons coming from Secunderabad side on black colour bullet and pr:lied stones on the bus, due to which the front glass of the bus got danraged and the 2 complainant received injuries on his head, eyebrow and left had with broken glasses of the bus. Therefore, a case was registered in Crime No.334 of 2015 for the offence punishable under Sections 147,148, 341,427 and 324 read with 149 of lPC, Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and Section 7(1) of Criminal Law Amendment Act.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is anayed as accused No.2 in the main FlR. Thereupon, he went to USA to pursue his higher studies and he was not available during course of trial. Upon examining the witnesses and evidence placed before the trial Court, the trial Court acquitted the other accused except the petitioner herein, who has been absconding in the crime No.335 of 2015 on the file of the Gandhi Nagar Police Station. The trial Court acquifted the other accused for the offences under Sections 147,'148, 341,427 and 324 read with Section '149 of lndian Penal Code and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and Section 7(1) of Criminal Law Amendment Act vide its order dated 11.11.2024 on the file of the XV Additional Judge -+um- XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad. The petitioner after coming to the knowledge of said fact, he has instructed the leamed counsel to approach this Court. 3

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the decision passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Kamataka at Bengaluru in Crl.p.No.26g6 of 2Q24, he seeks to allow this criminal petition.

7. Learned Assistant Pubric prosecutor would submit that the triar has been conducted against all other abcused, but ttr: trial cannot be conducted against the petitioner as he shown as etbsconding. The petitioner cannot take the benefit of the order passed t,y the trial court in acquifting all other accused as the fresh FIR has be=n filed and CC number has been assigned, therefore, the p,-.titioner without undergoing the trial, cannot seek indulgence of th s Cou( under Section 528 of BNSS. Hence, he seeks to disnri:;s the criminal petition.

8. Having regard to the submissions made by both tre counsel and upon careful scrutiny of the material available on record and relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of C:entral Bureau of lnvestigation v. Akhilesh singhl and also relying .n the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Kamataka at Benga uru in case of Mohammed ltias v. State of kamataka2, this Court op nes that since the trial court acquitted the other accused and if tha petitioner is subjected to second round of trial, the evidence t: be produced against him cannot be different from the one that was prrduced by the I AtR 2oos scc 260 Nc 'z eool) 3 Kant LJ 551 4 prosecution in the earlier case. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in CC No.759 oI2024.

9. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. To, ,,TRUE COPY'/

1. The XVAdditional Judge cum XIX Additional Chie Magistrate, Secunderabad Secunderabad

2. The Station House fficer, Gandhi Nagar Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, 3. One CC to Sri lmmaneni Rama Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to The Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Sd,- M. NAGAM TANT R RAR ECTION OFFICER etropolitan Hyderabad [OUTj

5. Two CD Copies W HIGH COURT DATED:11512025 .! .- -:':-:. ' -..':' - .\-r)._ I 16 [r] i0,T '\ .\l ORDER CRLP.No.3773 of 2025 PETITION IS ALLOWED. x b 1D