The High Court · 2025

PetitionunderSection52BofBNSS-,prayinothatinthecircumstances stated in the Memorandr."ot 6.r"0. ot Cnminat Fetition. the High Court may be oteased to quash th" dl;;g;';;"uiln c c r'ro 21 of 2024 (Main c c No 1365 ;;;fi;;; ii,]iie "ii nioitiJ"'iCr'i'r lVletropolitan ttilasistrate' Secunderabad I,A. NO: 10 F 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS nrayinl that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandr#"t O-.*0" oi Cii.init i"tition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of ,rr r"it"ip-tolutOingt in C C No 21 of 2024 (Main CC No .1365 of 2015) on tn" iif"'-"ii-nOaittnar Chief Metropolitan tvlagistrate' Secunderabad ThisPetitioncomingonforhearing,uponperusingtheMemorandumof Grounds of criminar petitiln and upon hearing the arguments of Sri IMMANENI RAMA RAO, Advocate tor the Peiitioner and Sri E Ganesh' Assistant Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent Nos l The Court made the following: ORDER I -=/ /// THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIM INAL PETIT ION N o.3774 of 2025 ORDER; This petition is filed under Section S2g of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ,BNSS, 2023,) seeking quashment of proceedings in CC No.21 of 2024 (tvlain CC No.1365 of 2015) on the file the learned X Additional Chief Metropolitan IVagistrate, Secunderabad (for short 'the triar court') against the petitioner- accused No.2.

2. Heard IVlr.Rama Rao lmmaneni, learned counsel for petitioner and [Vlr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant public prosecutor appearing for respondents.

3. Petitioner herein is accused in CC No.21 of 2024 and accused No.2 in CC No.1365 of 2015. The case against accused No.2 therein was split up and numbered as CC No.21 of 2024 as NBW 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 07.00 hours the bus bearing No.Ap 1 1 2662g of Musheerabad depot, when the bus reached upper Kavadiguda X Raods signals, the accused persons pelted stones on the bus, due to which the front glass of the bus got damaged and the complainant received injuries on his head, z eyebrow and left had with broken glasses of the bus' Therefore' a case was registered in Crime No'336 of 2015 for the offence punishable under Sections 147' 148' 341 and 427 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 arrayed as accused No'2 in the main FIR' 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 336 of 2015 on the file of the Gandhi Nagar Police Station' The trial Court acquitted the other accused for the offences under Sections 147 ' 148' 341 and 427 readwith 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 23'10'2024 on lhe file of the X Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Secunderabad. The petitioner after coming to the knowledge of said fact' he has instructed the learned counsel to approach this Court' Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the decision passed 6. by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Crl'P'No'2686 of 2024, he seeks to allow this criminal petition' f * 3 7 ' Learned Assistant pubric prosecutor wourd submit that the triar has been conducted against alr other accused, but the triar cannot be conducted against the petitioner as he shown as absconding. The petitioner cannot take the benefit of the order passed by the triar court in acquitting a, other accused as the fresh FrR has been fired and cc number has been assigned, therefore, the petitioner without the trial, cannot seek indulgence of this Court under of BNSS. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the criminal undergoing Section 528 petition. B. Having regard to the submissions made by both the counser 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 lnvestigation v. Akhitesh Singhl and also relying on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in case of Mohammed ilias v. State of karnataka2, this Court opines that since the triar cou( 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 produced by the prosecution in the earlier case. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in CC No.21 of 2024. '. AtR 2oos scc 260 Nc ' (20O1) 3 Kant LJ 551 i i I I I I I I j I I 4

9. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. SDi- L.VIJAYA LAXMI ASISSTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// S CTION OFFICER To

1. The X Additional Chief [tletropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Gandhinagar Police Station, Hyderabad 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at HyderabadIOUT]

4. One CC to SRl. IMMANENI RAMA RAO Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:01 10512025 ; .IFIE :, 14 ,(: .4' -',/ 0 3 sEP 2025 ORDER CRLP.No.3774 of 2025 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION <) D ?nz4_