The High Court · 2025

Prosecutor Of High Court, Hyderab.gd. I No.1 I Complainant

2. S.Manohar, S/o. S.Adi Narayana, Aged about. 39 Years, Occ. Sangeet Traders, R/o H. No. 8-4-380 I 31281 A, SanathNagar, Hyderabad. ...Respondent No.2 I De-facto Complainant 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 proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused in Crime No. 60 of 2025 dated. 18.01.2025 registered by police LB Nagar, Hyderabad. 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 stay of all proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused in Crime No. 60 of 2025 dated. '18.01.2025 registered by Police LB Nagar, Hyderabad. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and. upon hearing the arguments of sri Muthyala Muralidhar, Advocate for the petitioner and M.Vivekananda Reddy the Additional Public Prosecutor (TG/AP) on behalf of the Respondent No.l and of sri R. Anurag, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following Order:- THE HOITOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA ORDER: ThisCriminal'Petitionisfiledseekingtoquashthe proceedings against the petitioner/accused in crime No.6O of 2025 of L.B. Nagar Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, registered for the offences punishable under Sections g2g(4:;,351(2), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short, 'BNSJ and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ( for short, 'the Act')'

2.Thebrieffactsofthecasearethat,onl8'O1'2025'ttjle de-facto complainant lodged a report before the Police stating that on 16.01 .2C,25, white he was in the MD room of sahaara Hospitat. Mansoorabad, Vanasthalipurarn, Shivani' ar1- aaya' vras Serving him tea. Suddenly, the accused trespassed into the room. She abused the cornplainant using filthy language' making caste-based remarks and ordered him to leave the room and further abused hirn and also threatened him with dire consequences. 2 sKsr, Crl.P.lto.4079 of 2O2S 3' Basing on the said complaint, the police registered a case in crime No.6o of 2o2s for the offence punishable under Sections 329(41, 351(2), 352 of BNS and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Act. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present criminal petition to quash the proceeding against her. 4' Heard Sri Muthyata Muraridhar, learned cou.sel for the petitioner as well as sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public prosecutor for respondent No. r - state and Sri R. Anurag, l,earned counsel for respondent No.2.

5. Learned counser for the petitioner submittcd that the petitioner is a doctor by profession and the owner of M/s. sahaara Hospitar, rocated at Mansoorabad, which falls under the jurisdiction of porice station Vanasthalipuram. The alleged offence in crime No.6o of 2o2s is said to have occurred at this hospital and that the petitioner is also a partner and creditor of M/s. Sreshta orange Hospital at LB Nagar, having extended a hand loan of Rs.2,O0,OO,OOO/_ to the hospital and Mr. Ageeru Karthik through an agreement dated ll.Lo.2o24. He further subn-ritteri Lirat no repaymenr or interest has been made by Mr- Ageeru Karthik, that the petitioner has a right to enter the hospital premises rncluding .q \a 3 sKs'., Cr1.P.Ito.4079 ol2O25 MD room and the registering of the subject crime is purely on misconception and as such, no such criminal act or intention is involved as alleged by the respondent No.2 and intended as a counterblast to FIR No.128l of 2C.24 dated 04.11 .2024 filed by the petitioner against the de-facto complainant under Sections g2g(4:l,74,351(2), read with Section 3(5) of the BNS' Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the

6. FIR in Crime No.6O of 2025 was wrongly registered by Police Station LB Nagar, despite the atleged offence location falling und.er the jurisdiction of vanasthalipuram and that the de- facto complainant had trespassed into the MD's room of M/s. Sahaara Hospital, sat on the MD's chair, and was served tea' and that the allegations of abuse by the petitioner are fabricated and malicious. He further contended that the de- fac,to complainant is acting in collusion with the Station House Oflicer and Assistant Commissioner of Police, LB Nagar, to harass the petitioner. He emphasized that the de- fado complainant has no connection to the hospital, no authorization to enter the MD's room, and is known to be a habitual and vexatious litigant who has previously filed similar false cases, including FIR No.1259 of 2024 against the I t l. I 4 sKs,J Crl.P.Ito.4079 of 2O2S petitioner's husband and further submitted that the petitioner hails from a reputed family and is a respected medical professional, and the present complaint is an attempt to extort money and tarnish her reputation. Therefore, he prayed the court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition. 7 ' on the other hand, learned counsel for respo'dent No.2 submitted that the petition was devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed stating that the report filed by the d.e-facto complainant did not speciff that the incident occurred at LB Nagar, but rather mentioned sahara Hospitar as the place of occurrence. He further submitted that the reference to Vanasthalipuram jurisdiction was a clericar error, which was subsequently corrected and that the petitioner herself had lodged a counter-complaint against the de-facfo comprainant, and both complaints require thorough investigation. He argued that the allegations raised by the petitioner involve disputed facts that cannot be adjudicated at this preliminary stage and requested the court to dismiss the criminar petition. \ \D 5 sKs'J Crl.P.IYo.zt079 ol 2O2S

8. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that it was only a $rpographical mistake in the FIR. In fact, the alteged incident occurred at Sahara Hospital and also filed a copy of rectified FIR. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition. g. In the light of the submissions made by both the parties and upon perusal of ttre material available on record, it is evident that the present petition has been filed seeking quashing of the proceedings in crime No.6O of 2025, primarily on the ground. that the registration of the FIR is illegal. The main contention of the petitioner is that she is the owner of the hospital in question, and therefore, the allegation of trespass into her own property is untenable and that the complaint is false. Ffowever, the record reveals that the petitioner has also lodged a complaint against the de-facto complainant on 04.11.2024, pursuant to which an FIR was registered for offences punishable under Sections 329(41, 74, 351(2) read with section 3(5) of BNS. This indicates that there are underlyrng disputes pertaining to the management and \ \ \ 6 SKSJ Crl. P.I(o..{O79 of 2O2S control of the hospital and other related issues between the parties.

10. Considering the existence of rival claims and counter_ allegations, this Court is of the considered vierv that both cases warrant a fair and thorough investigation. The disputed facts and the nature of the allegations cannot be adjudicated at this preliminary stage. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the criminal petition to quash the proceedings against the petitioner and the same is liable to be dismissed.

11. Accordingly, this criminal petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shzrll stand closed. SD'- AHMED ABDULLA KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,,TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To,

1. The ll Additional Judicial Magistrate cum Additional Junior Civil Judge at L.B. Nagar, Rangareddy District.

2. The Station House Officer, L.B. Nagar P.S-, Rachakonda Commissionerate e 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. IOUTI

4. One CC to Sri Muthyala Muralldhar,-Advocate IOPUC] 5. One CC to Sri R. Anurag, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies Vrvc/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:1310912025 ORDER GRLP.No.4079 ot 2025 I I I DISMISSING THE CRLP or"6tt> ,t t'.' ,6 lil:: :i " 1' t, 22l,lott zfltr * l)4\" Ar6' * ($ (-