High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the l/'lemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records in SC.SPL No. 60/2025 on the file of I Additional District and Medak Sessions Judge, I\4edak in connection with FIR No. 11712021 Daled. 1510712021 of Police Station Rajgopalpet for the alleged offence Under Sections 430 lPC, Sec 3 of PDPP ACT is concerned in the interest of justice and 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 SC.SPL No. 60/2025 on the file of lAdditional District and Medak Sessions Judge, Medak in connection with FIR No 1.17t2021 Daled. 1510712021 of Police Station Rajgopalpet for the alleged offence Under Sections 430 lPC, Sec 3 of PDPP ACT is concerned including arrest, investigation and filing of final report, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition in the interest of justice and pass This Petition coming on for heartng, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri RAMAVARAM CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER w HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITI ON NO.377'l ot 2025 ORDER: Heard Mr. R.Chandrasekhar Reddy, learnecl counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. l . 2. This criminal petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking quashment of the proceedlngs in S C.Spl.No.60 of 2025 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak. 3. The petitioner is sole accused and facing charges under Section 430 of IPC and Section 3 of prevention of Damage to Public Property Act (for short, 'PDPP Act') 4. The prosecution case in brief is that on 15.O7.2021 at about 2 p.m. the Assistant Executive Engineer of lrrigation Department lodged report stating that upon information of Village Revenue Officer (VRO)/Jangam Naresh he came to krow that the petitioneriaccused had damaged Gunjonikunta tarrk bund for a length of '1 00 meters and after field visit confirmed that the tank bund and Mathadi concrete walls worth about Rs.10,00,0001 has been damaged. Upon the report, a case in Crime No. j 17 of 2021 a NTR,J 1RLP.377 l- -2025 ., has been registered and after investigation the charge sheet was laid.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the offence. He asserts that the petitioner is resident of Hyderabad and she never been at the place nor done anything as complained in the report. That apart, pleaded that as per the eye witnesses' account the damage was carried out with unknown tractor dozer, but the same was not seized so far. Additionally the charge sheet itself is clarifying that the constructed wall was in the middle of her property without any acquisition proceedings. Further it is unclear as to why the eye witnesses who are also the officials, remained silent without any action at relevant time. These circumstances are explaining the falsity of the complaint. On the other hand, pleaded that the officials concerned had mismanaged the funds allotted for construction of wall and to cover up this situation, this false case has been foisted against the petitioner. Hence continuance of the proceedings against the petitioner would be improper, as such prayed for quashment. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the

6. petitioner got damaged the tank bund to a length about 100 ,l< i I

7. 3 N1R,.J cRLll 377t 20)) meters with the tractor dozer which was directly witnessed by the Village Revenue Assistant (Vffi). Further the claim of the petitioner that the bund was constructed in the landed property of the petitioner is not true and however the petitioner l-raving landed property adjacent to the bund. He further pleads that even if there is unauthorized construction by the Governrnent agency, the petitioner should have availed legal recourse for compensation or clearing the wall but destroying the tank bund on her own is unacceptable and will not insulate the petitioner from prosecution. Fu(her the contentions and defence raised can only be determined in the trial. Hence prayed for dismissal of the petition. I have perused the materials on record.

7. B. As per the complaint the de facto complainant was I ( informed that the petitioner/accused had destroyed the bund of Gunjonikunta. Though he is not an eye witness to the occurrence he visited the spot and found that the concrete wall of the bund was destroyed about '100 meters. The direct witnesses examined by the investigating agency i.e. VRO and VRA in one voice stated that on the night of 14.07.2021 the petitioner had cjismanfled the bund of Gunjonikunta with a tractor dozer. On the other hand, the I 4 NTR,J ORLP 3771 2025 contention as to the petitioner was not involved in the occurrence and the contested falsities needs enquiry and the factual affirmation of contrasting pleas can only be determined after due trial. ln such position, drawing any conclusion as to veracity of the statements of the witnesses would be premature and unjustified. L Further in the light of settled legal propositions in Stale of Haryana v. Bhajan Lall and catenae of dictums of the Hon'ble Apex Court, as the materials of the instant case are falling short to make out any tenable ground, interfering with the proceedings at this stage is found improper.

11. For the aforesaid reasons, in the absence of merit, the criminal petition is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL D PUTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER I To 1 2 3 4 5 V The I Additional District and Medak Sessions Jud The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Siddipet The Station House Offlcer, Police Station, Rajgopalpet, SiddipetDistricl Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUT OR, High Court at Hyderabad. (OUT) One CC to SRI RAMAVARAM CHA loPUCl NDRASHEKAR REDDY Advocate Medak

6. Two CD Copies I 1992 SCc (Cri) at page 378 HIGH COURT DATED: 1910312025 -ai ' dl: J c lJ O 3 JuN ilffi z C) t D6 S,rtrC\{q--O * ORDER CRLP.N 0.3771 of 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED 0\ \ I 5 b