The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. Raju Singh S/o Late Ramchander, Aged about 47 yearc.., Occ. Dhobi, R/o H.No. 21-4-351, N/lohalla Travela Donger Singh, Charmahal, Hussaini Alam, Hyderabad. ... RespondenUCompla ina nts Petition under Section 482 ol Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the [Vlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the Docket Order dated 20-03-2024 in Crl.Mp.No.996 of 2023 in CC.No.'10515 of 2023 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magislrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad for taking cognizance of offences u/s 406, 42O, 468, 471, 384, 447,506 IPC against the petitroners/Accused No.1 and 2. l.A. NO: 1OF 2024 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 all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners/ Accused No. 1 and 2 in pursuance of the CC.No.10515 of 2023 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the main Crl.P. ;i: "g This Petition s6,ming on for hearing, upon perusin!l t le Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arg. rents of Sri L.RAM SINGH, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri lVl.[iarrachandra Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Responrlr: rt No.1, and none appeared for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER w THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.4409 ot 2024 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the docket order daled 27 12.2023 passed in Crl.M P.No 996 of 2023 in C.C.No.10515 of 2023 by the learned Chief Metropolitan lt/lagistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad (for short 'trial Court') for taking cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 406,420,468,471,384,447 and 506 r/w Section 34 of lPC.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant and [t/r.[VI. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State. Perused the record

3. The complainant filed a private complaint alleging that the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2, his own sister and brother, have fabricated a false gift settlement deed bearing document No.21g8 of 2016, dated 11.04.2016, purportedly executed by their mother for 50 square yards of property already gifted by their father to the complainant and petitioner-accused No.2 in the year 2OO2. lt is alleged .-.wi* that the petitioners are trespassing into his l. luse and causing nuisance. Basing on the said complaint, the trial , )ourt referred the same to the Police charminar for investigation. rr'ter compretion of investigation, the Porice fired finar report referring tir,: crime as ,civir nature'. On knolving the same, the complainant has:i ed protest petition against the petitioners. After recording the s,vr:rn statement of complainant, the trial Court has taken cogl.ri;:a rce against the petitioners and rssued summons to them by order r ated 21 .j2.2023, which reads as follows: "Conrplainant present. Heard the cour:€ for the complainant and perused the sworn statemi) s of the complainant and other witnesses and also r:-used the documents filed on behalf of the complainant, r€ -using the same prima facie case is made out against r,. and' 42. Therefore, case is taken on file as C.C.No 10515, ?:23 against 41 and ,A2 for the offences under Sections 4A6, 4,,|) 46g". 4ll, 384, 447 and 506 rlw 34 of lpC against the accus,, r.l Nos..1 and 2. lssue summons to 41 and A2 on payment of F).1.,.)ess Call on 08.03.2024 "

4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners ,;r bmitted that the disputes between the parties are purely civil in natLrrer but the present complaint is lodged giving a cloak of criminal offence: :juits are pending between both ther parties. The police have righily re,,:"red the crime as 'civil in nature'. without issuing notice and affordinr: ,rn opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the learned Magistrate ha,; l;lksn cognizance against them, without application of her mind into the rrraterial on record ,,ry., and assigning any valid reasons. Hence, prayed to set aside the cognizance order, dated 27 -12.2023 and to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-complainant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor in one tone contended that there are :;pecific allegations against the petitioners and the truth or otherwise of lhe allegations levelled against them can only be known after conducting full-fledged trial before the trial court Hence, they prayed to drsmiss the petition'

6. ln Lalankumar Singh and others v. State of Maharashtral ,lhe Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:

28. The order of issuance of process ls nol an empty fomality The Magistrate is required to appty his mind as to wh.ether sufficient grolnd for proceeding exisfs n lhe case or not. The formation of \uch an opiinion is required to be stated in the order itself' The order is liabte to be set aslde if no reasorts are given therein while coming to the conctuston that there is a prima facie case against the accused. No doubt, that lhe orcler need not contain detailed reasons. A reference in ths respect could be made to the iudgment of this Court in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal vs' Central Bureau of lnvestigation2 , which reads thus

51. On the other hand, Section 204 of the Code deals with the lssue of process, if in the opinion of the Magistrate taktng cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient ground for proceeding' Ihis Seclion relates to commencement of a criminal proceeding lf the Magistrate taking cognizance of a case (it may be the Magistrite receiving the complaint or to whom it has been | 2022 LiYeLaw (sc) E3i '(20 rs) 4 scc 609 w'?B.b"ll \' transferrecl under Section 192). upon a cansi(l,.,, i,lion of the materi.als before him (i.e., the coinptaint, cxen,, i,t otn of the complainartt anC his witnesscs if present, or reDcti ;t inquiry, i any), tlttnl:s that there is a prima facie case ior 1t t:ceeding in respect of an olfence. he sha// /ssue process agatnst'i.,,. accused 52. A wide rliscretion has been gven as lo gr artt tr refusal of proccss and .ft must be judicially erercrsed. A pLrst, Ltoht nat la be daggel ittto Coun merety because a compla tt ,,, i'c^n lrteu tI a pntna taclc case has been made oLl, the Mlagt;;rr,te ouglit to lssue process and it cannot be refused merety bic:trt,;t: l1e thinks that it ts Ltnlikely to resutt in a convictiotj

53. Howe:ver, the words ',sufficient grouncls f(t. t)ro(:eedrtg,, appeanng in the Section are of immenie impoftat _.. /1 /s these words whtch amply suggest that an opinion is to l,:: ,ottnect after due application of mind that there rs suffli;i r )/ bas/s Ior proceednc against the saicl accused and fct.malii.., i sLtch an opinion is to be stated in the order itsetf The orde; t,abte to be sel aslc/e if no reason is given therein while ,r.,,,.,,,rr,t to th" conclus.ion that there is prima facie case agalhsl ac.,t..,ei'l, though the order need not contain detailed."r"oi" A fo,t,, ,-'titc orde, would be bad n law if the reason gNen turns oLtt t ) t.)c t:x facir: incorrect "

7. ln Krishna Lal Chawla and others y. Sfat€ ctf uttar pradesh and others3, at paragraph No.28, the judgment of thr: lon,ble Supreme Court in Pepsl Foods Limited and another v. ::ipecial Judiciat Magistrate and othersa, is referred and the same reirc s as under:

28. Sumrnoning of an accused in a cnminal cas€ ,tr a -seflous matter Criminal law cannot be set into noton a, , natter of coursr-.. /l is not that the complalnant has to bi n,, only twa wltnesses; to supporl his a egations in the comptait t t ha've he criminal law set into motion. The order af thc magtstrate summoning the accused must reftect that he ha:. tDpied his mind to tlte facts of the case and the law appticab,,: ,.terelo. He has to examine the nature of altegations made in ,n, ioi:rptuint and the evidence both oral and documentary in su)t ctl thereof and woulC that be sufficient for the compta'inani ,,,cieeO in -lLt' ' (zo: t) : scc (c.it cr, r '1r9o8y s scc t+o bringing charge home to the accused. lt is not that the Magistrate ls a sl/enf spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. l/lagistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put quesllons to the complainant and his witnesses to elrcit answers to find out the trutllfulness of the allegatiotls or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima f acie committed by all or any of the accused. B Having heard both sides and perused the material on record, it is apparent from the record that the crime was initially referred as 'civil in nature' and only after filing protest petition, vide cognizance order, dated 27.12.2023, cognizance w,ts taken against the petitioners. As seen from the cognizance order, dated 27.12.2023, it does not appear that the learned [t/lagistrate has applied her mind and nothing was mentioned in the order regarding the facts of the case, which prompted the learned Magistrate to take cognizance, except stating that sworn statements of the complainant and other witnesses were taken into consideration. Even notice and an opportunity of hearing was not given to the accused. The order of issuance of process is not an empty formality and it is a serious issue. The Court cannot take cognizance and summon the accused to face criminal trial without giving any cogent reasons. The order taking cognizance though not required to be elaborate should reflect proper reasons for taking cognizance of the offence. The aforesaid judgments are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, as in the present case also, without assigning any @!i convrncing reasons, the learned tVlagistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioners herein and issued sumntons 1_r them.

9. ln the judgment of Paramjeet Batra v. State ,tf lJttarakhand, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Couri at paragraph lr!r: z held as follows: "7. While exercising its jurisdiction under Secti.,'t IBZ of the Code the Hgh Courl has to be cautious. This 1,Lt.,,er is to be used sparingly and only for tlte purpose of preve,-;t ry abuse of fhe process of any courl or otherutise to secure t:t,<i:: of justice. Whether a complaint dlsc/oses a criminal offe ce ,)ot clepencls upon the natltre of facts alleged therein. Whett):)r essential ingredtents of crirninal offence are present ar ) has to be judged by the High Coutl. A complaint c,:;L:losing civil transactions may also have a cfiminal texture. lj,jt the High Couft n,:JSt see whether a dispute which is esser;l irl/y of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. ln sltc, t, situation. if a civil rentedy is available and is, in fact, act,t,:,ed as has happcned in this case, the High Couft shoutd t-,..,i hesitate to quash crintinal proceedings to prevent abuse a,, process of coLti. "

10. On going through the complaint and suro n statement of complainant, it appears that the disputes between th:: rarties are purely civil in nature. '/y'ith regard to the same, civil r; Lt ts are penciing. Although the disputes between the parties are purel./ civil in nature, they were essentially given a criminal texture, : nd the present complaint was lodged with an intention to setfle tl.re civil disputes through criminal proceedings. There is flo indep,:rndent witness or evidence to corroborate the version of the complainar.rt. t izots; 't t scc o;a --'.i*81

11. As prima facie nc case is made out against the petitioners and since civil suits are already pending between the parties, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paramieet Batra's case, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., so as to prevent an abuse of the process of Court. 12 Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed, setting aside the cognizance order, dated 27.12.2023 passed in Crl.M.P.No.996 of 2023 in C.C.No.10515 of 2023 and the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.'t0515 of 2023 pending on the file of the Chief Metropolitan ltlagistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- B.REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Charminar Police Station, Hyderabad. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to Sri L.Ram Singh, Advocate [OPUC] 5 Two CD Copies n-VUi PSL \q- -..5-13lrrift!1F-' - -€' r' HIGH COURT DATED:2510912025 ! ORDER CRLP.No.4409 of 2024 't i [tT 295 , \/,, ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION t\ 4,9s

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. Raju Singh S/o Late Ramchander, Aged about 47 yearc.., Occ. Dhobi, R/o H.No. 21-4-351, N/lohalla Travela Donger Singh, Charmahal, Hussaini Alam, Hyderabad. ... RespondenUCompla ina nts Petition under Section 482 ol Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the [Vlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the Docket Order dated 20-03-2024 in Crl.Mp.No.996 of 2023 in CC.No.'10515 of 2023 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magislrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad for taking cognizance of offences u/s 406, 42O, 468, 471, 384, 447,506 IPC against the petitroners/Accused No.1 and 2. l.A. NO: 1OF 2024 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 all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners/ Accused No. 1 and 2 in pursuance of the CC.No.10515 of 2023 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the main Crl.P. ;i: "g This Petition s6,ming on for hearing, upon perusin!l t le Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arg. rents of Sri L.RAM SINGH, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri lVl.[iarrachandra Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Responrlr: rt No.1, and none appeared for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER w THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.4409 ot 2024 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the docket order daled 27 12.2023 passed in Crl.M P.No 996 of 2023 in C.C.No.10515 of 2023 by the learned Chief Metropolitan lt/lagistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad (for short 'trial Court') for taking cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 406,420,468,471,384,447 and 506 r/w Section 34 of lPC.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant and [t/r.[VI. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State. Perused the record

3. The complainant filed a private complaint alleging that the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2, his own sister and brother, have fabricated a false gift settlement deed bearing document No.21g8 of 2016, dated 11.04.2016, purportedly executed by their mother for 50 square yards of property already gifted by their father to the complainant and petitioner-accused No.2 in the year 2OO2. lt is alleged .-.wi* that the petitioners are trespassing into his l. luse and causing nuisance. Basing on the said complaint, the trial , )ourt referred the same to the Police charminar for investigation. rr'ter compretion of investigation, the Porice fired finar report referring tir,: crime as ,civir nature'. On knolving the same, the complainant has:i ed protest petition against the petitioners. After recording the s,vr:rn statement of complainant, the trial Court has taken cogl.ri;:a rce against the petitioners and rssued summons to them by order r ated 21 .j2.2023, which reads as follows: "Conrplainant present. Heard the cour:€ for the complainant and perused the sworn statemi) s of the complainant and other witnesses and also r:-used the documents filed on behalf of the complainant, r€ -using the same prima facie case is made out against r,. and' 42. Therefore, case is taken on file as C.C.No 10515, ?:23 against 41 and ,A2 for the offences under Sections 4A6, 4,,|) 46g". 4ll, 384, 447 and 506 rlw 34 of lpC against the accus,, r.l Nos..1 and 2. lssue summons to 41 and A2 on payment of F).1.,.)ess Call on 08.03.2024 "

4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners ,;r bmitted that the disputes between the parties are purely civil in natLrrer but the present complaint is lodged giving a cloak of criminal offence: :juits are pending between both ther parties. The police have righily re,,:"red the crime as 'civil in nature'. without issuing notice and affordinr: ,rn opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the learned Magistrate ha,; l;lksn cognizance against them, without application of her mind into the rrraterial on record ,,ry., and assigning any valid reasons. Hence, prayed to set aside the cognizance order, dated 27 -12.2023 and to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-complainant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor in one tone contended that there are :;pecific allegations against the petitioners and the truth or otherwise of lhe allegations levelled against them can only be known after conducting full-fledged trial before the trial court Hence, they prayed to drsmiss the petition'

6. ln Lalankumar Singh and others v. State of Maharashtral ,lhe Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:

28. The order of issuance of process ls nol an empty fomality The Magistrate is required to appty his mind as to wh.ether sufficient grolnd for proceeding exisfs n lhe case or not. The formation of \uch an opiinion is required to be stated in the order itself' The order is liabte to be set aslde if no reasorts are given therein while coming to the conctuston that there is a prima facie case against the accused. No doubt, that lhe orcler need not contain detailed reasons. A reference in ths respect could be made to the iudgment of this Court in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal vs' Central Bureau of lnvestigation2 , which reads thus

51. On the other hand, Section 204 of the Code deals with the lssue of process, if in the opinion of the Magistrate taktng cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient ground for proceeding' Ihis Seclion relates to commencement of a criminal proceeding lf the Magistrate taking cognizance of a case (it may be the Magistrite receiving the complaint or to whom it has been | 2022 LiYeLaw (sc) E3i '(20 rs) 4 scc 609 w'?B.b"ll \' transferrecl under Section 192). upon a cansi(l,.,, i,lion of the materi.als before him (i.e., the coinptaint, cxen,, i,t otn of the complainartt anC his witnesscs if present, or reDcti ;t inquiry, i any), tlttnl:s that there is a prima facie case ior 1t t:ceeding in respect of an olfence. he sha// /ssue process agatnst'i.,,. accused 52. A wide rliscretion has been gven as lo gr artt tr refusal of proccss and .ft must be judicially erercrsed. A pLrst, Ltoht nat la be daggel ittto Coun merety because a compla tt ,,, i'c^n lrteu tI a pntna taclc case has been made oLl, the Mlagt;;rr,te ouglit to lssue process and it cannot be refused merety bic:trt,;t: l1e thinks that it ts Ltnlikely to resutt in a convictiotj

53. Howe:ver, the words ',sufficient grouncls f(t. t)ro(:eedrtg,, appeanng in the Section are of immenie impoftat _.. /1 /s these words whtch amply suggest that an opinion is to l,:: ,ottnect after due application of mind that there rs suffli;i r )/ bas/s Ior proceednc against the saicl accused and fct.malii.., i sLtch an opinion is to be stated in the order itsetf The orde; t,abte to be sel aslc/e if no reason is given therein while ,r.,,,.,,,rr,t to th" conclus.ion that there is prima facie case agalhsl ac.,t..,ei'l, though the order need not contain detailed."r"oi" A fo,t,, ,-'titc orde, would be bad n law if the reason gNen turns oLtt t ) t.)c t:x facir: incorrect "

7. ln Krishna Lal Chawla and others y. Sfat€ ctf uttar pradesh and others3, at paragraph No.28, the judgment of thr: lon,ble Supreme Court in Pepsl Foods Limited and another v. ::ipecial Judiciat Magistrate and othersa, is referred and the same reirc s as under:

28. Sumrnoning of an accused in a cnminal cas€ ,tr a -seflous matter Criminal law cannot be set into noton a, , natter of coursr-.. /l is not that the complalnant has to bi n,, only twa wltnesses; to supporl his a egations in the comptait t t ha've he criminal law set into motion. The order af thc magtstrate summoning the accused must reftect that he ha:. tDpied his mind to tlte facts of the case and the law appticab,,: ,.terelo. He has to examine the nature of altegations made in ,n, ioi:rptuint and the evidence both oral and documentary in su)t ctl thereof and woulC that be sufficient for the compta'inani ,,,cieeO in -lLt' ' (zo: t) : scc (c.it cr, r '1r9o8y s scc t+o bringing charge home to the accused. lt is not that the Magistrate ls a sl/enf spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. l/lagistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put quesllons to the complainant and his witnesses to elrcit answers to find out the trutllfulness of the allegatiotls or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima f acie committed by all or any of the accused. B Having heard both sides and perused the material on record, it is apparent from the record that the crime was initially referred as 'civil in nature' and only after filing protest petition, vide cognizance order, dated 27.12.2023, cognizance w,ts taken against the petitioners. As seen from the cognizance order, dated 27.12.2023, it does not appear that the learned [t/lagistrate has applied her mind and nothing was mentioned in the order regarding the facts of the case, which prompted the learned Magistrate to take cognizance, except stating that sworn statements of the complainant and other witnesses were taken into consideration. Even notice and an opportunity of hearing was not given to the accused. The order of issuance of process is not an empty formality and it is a serious issue. The Court cannot take cognizance and summon the accused to face criminal trial without giving any cogent reasons. The order taking cognizance though not required to be elaborate should reflect proper reasons for taking cognizance of the offence. The aforesaid judgments are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, as in the present case also, without assigning any @!i convrncing reasons, the learned tVlagistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioners herein and issued sumntons 1_r them.

9. ln the judgment of Paramjeet Batra v. State ,tf lJttarakhand, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Couri at paragraph lr!r: z held as follows: "7. While exercising its jurisdiction under Secti.,'t IBZ of the Code the Hgh Courl has to be cautious. This 1,Lt.,,er is to be used sparingly and only for tlte purpose of preve,-;t ry abuse of fhe process of any courl or otherutise to secure t:t,<i:: of justice. Whether a complaint dlsc/oses a criminal offe ce ,)ot clepencls upon the natltre of facts alleged therein. Whett):)r essential ingredtents of crirninal offence are present ar ) has to be judged by the High Coutl. A complaint c,:;L:losing civil transactions may also have a cfiminal texture. lj,jt the High Couft n,:JSt see whether a dispute which is esser;l irl/y of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. ln sltc, t, situation. if a civil rentedy is available and is, in fact, act,t,:,ed as has happcned in this case, the High Couft shoutd t-,..,i hesitate to quash crintinal proceedings to prevent abuse a,, process of coLti. "

10. On going through the complaint and suro n statement of complainant, it appears that the disputes between th:: rarties are purely civil in nature. '/y'ith regard to the same, civil r; Lt ts are penciing. Although the disputes between the parties are purel./ civil in nature, they were essentially given a criminal texture, : nd the present complaint was lodged with an intention to setfle tl.re civil disputes through criminal proceedings. There is flo indep,:rndent witness or evidence to corroborate the version of the complainar.rt. t izots; 't t scc o;a --'.i*81

11. As prima facie nc case is made out against the petitioners and since civil suits are already pending between the parties, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paramieet Batra's case, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., so as to prevent an abuse of the process of Court. 12 Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed, setting aside the cognizance order, dated 27.12.2023 passed in Crl.M.P.No.996 of 2023 in C.C.No.10515 of 2023 and the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.'t0515 of 2023 pending on the file of the Chief Metropolitan ltlagistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- B.REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Charminar Police Station, Hyderabad. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to Sri L.Ram Singh, Advocate [OPUC] 5 Two CD Copies n-VUi PSL \q- -..5-13lrrift!1F-' - -€' r' HIGH COURT DATED:2510912025 ! ORDER CRLP.No.4409 of 2024 't i [tT 295 , \/,, ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION t\ 4,9s