The High Court · 2025

1 The State of Telangana, through the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana At Hyderabad 2 The lnspector of Police, GopalPuram Police Station, Gopal Puram, Secunderabad ...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS 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 2012024 (Main CC No 47012016\ on the file of the Court of the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Secunderabad l.A. NO: 1OF 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 stay of all further proceedings in CC No 2012024 (Main CC No 47012016) on the file of the Court of the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad pending the disposal of main petition. .:-' :.:Ba This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Mernorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of liri IMMANENI RAMA RAO, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri. E GANEIIH. Assistant Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the Respondents. The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.3770 ot 2025 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS, 2023').seeking quashment of proceedings in CC No.20 of 2024 (Main CC No.470 of 2016) on the file the learned X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad against the petitioner-accused No..

2. Heard Mr.Rama Rao lmmaneni, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.E.Ganesh, Iearned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents

3. Petitioner herein accused No.6 in CC No.470 of 2016. The case against accused No.6 therein was split up and numbered as CC No.20 of 2024 as NBW was pending against him since long time

4. The brief facts of the case are that on 10.10.2015 the complainant lodged a complaint stating that on the same day at 05.40 hours the Metro Deluxe bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 7507, Route No.20X251, from Secunderabad to Shamshabad Airport, started from Retfile bust stop and after crossing the Chilkalguda cross roads, opposite Renault show room, accused persons formed as unlawful assembly came there by two wheelers and raised slogans against the Government and pelted stones on the bus, due to which the front glass 2 of the bus got damaged. Therefore, a case was re,gistered in Crime No.3'19 of 2015 for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 421 , 353 and 341 read with 149 of IPC and 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 subm t that petitioner is arrayed as accused No.6 in the main FlR. Thereuporr, he went to USA to pursue his higher studies and he was not availabler during course of trial. Upon examining the witnesses and evidence ltlaced 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 acquitted the other accused for the offences under Sections 147,427, 353 and 341 read with Section 149 of lndian penal Oode and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and Section 7(1)of Criminal Law Amendment Act vide its order dated 23.10.2024 on lhe file of the X Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Sec;underabad. The petitioner after coming to the knowledge of said fact, re has instructed the learned counsel to approach this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the decision passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Crl.p.No.26g6 of 2024, seeks to allow this criminal petition. J

7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the trial i I has been conducted against all other accused, but the trial cannot be conducted against the petitioner as he was shown as absconding. The petitioner cannot take the benefit of the order passed by the trial Court in acquitting all other accused as the fresh FIR has been filed I * and CC number has been assigned, therefore, the petitioner without undergoing the trial, cannot seek indulgence of this Court under Section 528 of BNSS. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the criminal petition.

8. Having regard to the submissions made by both the 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 Central Bureau of tnvestigation v. Akhitesh Singhl and also relying on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in case of Mohammed llias v. State of karnataka2, this Court opines that since the trial Court acquitted the other accused, and if the petitioner is subjected to second round of trial, the evidence to be produced against him cannot be different from the one that was prodLlced by the prosecution in the earlier case. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in CC No.2O of 2024. ' AtR 2oos scc 268 NC '1 eou) 3 Kant LJ 551 4

9. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. \ To, SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR L rl.l ^'\ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The X Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad 2. The Station House Officer, GopalPuram P S ' Secunde-abad 3 One CC to SRI IMIvIANENI RAMA RAO Advocate [OPJC] 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Advocate [OUT] 5. Two CD CoPies ..,KN/PSL {* HIGH COURT DATED:01 10512025 -- -=\ ,l;f fi\:r tli.::'i' 2 I AU6 2025 ORDER CRLP.No.3770 o12025 CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED x 'rl-