The High Court · 2025

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K Srinivasa Rao, Party in Person, for the Petitioner and Sri Rudresh Deshpande, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 and of Sri V S R M V Prasad Sanaka, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.473O of 2O25 ORDER: l'ltis CrirrLinal Pctition is filcd by the petitiorrt r se ckirlg tr.r sct asiclc the clocket orcler dated 28.06 '2O l1 passecl Irl '2Ol) on thc file of VI Metropolili n MtLgistratc' C.C.No.823 'f c].bt:ri,rl;ad a r Idcdchzrl alnrl [o direct the trial (')urt t(r frilttlt' chirlgt:s itr C.C.No.823 af 2012 by reopcnlrrq tIre trLal pr ot ct;clings. llcard Srr K.srinivasa Rao, party in-pcrs'ltr, Sri Rudri:sh

2. Dt:sh1;an<lc, lctLrnccl Assistant Public Prosecutrlr ::ppeatrittg li;r rcspor-rdcnts 1 irncl 2 :rnd Sri V-S.R.M.V. Pras:rd Sr Lr'aka, lcartlccl counscl itppt:aring for rcsponclent No 3-

3. Tht' cor-rtention o[ thc party-in-person-pe t tioner ls thiit tht tnal Cour- examined lhe accused under Se':tiotl 25 i oI Cr'.['.C. ancl convir:Lecl lor the olfence under Set:lic't'ts 448, 127 and 5O6 of lndiarr Penal Codc (for short 'IPC') ar-r'l sentenccd to pay a line ol Rs.3OOO/' in default to suffer S I lor on<: mr>nth' Challenging the said order the present petitiorl s liled slating that in Lok Arialat they cannot take the admiss'it>ns and it is 2 o onl]r for the compoundable offences. The complainant was not present at the time o[ compounding the ofl'encc :urd the trial Court rvithou t going into Lhe same examincd thc accused under Scction 251 ol Cr.P.C and convicted undcr Section 252 of Cr.P.C. His further contention is that offence under Section 506 of IPC is punishable with seven years. As such, it is a warrant case, accused cannot be examined undcr Sccticln 251 Cr.P.C. As such, prayed this Court to set aside thc dtrckct order of the trial Court.

4. On thc other hand, the contention of lcarncd counsel for the 3rd respondent is that the petitioner herein has no locus standii, hc is r-rot the complainant in the said C.C., and he cannot challcnge the same as a witness to thc said case. He lurther conrcnded that the petitioner hcrein madc allegations againsL the judicial officer rvithout any basis. There are no merits in this petition. As such, prayed this Court to disrniss this criminal petition with exemplary costs-

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that if party is aggricved by the order of trial court the recourse is to file appeai for the sentence imposed but he cannot challenge the same in a quash petition and prayed to dismiss this petition. 3

6. Considcring thc submissions made by bot 1r the counsel :urci the materi:'Ll on rcr:ord, the first contention rrf petitioner is tlrtl in Lr-r t: l\c[:rlirt both parties have ttl bt prcset'rt for c:o rrrpout-rditrg tlrtr tllli lt<:es u'hcreas thc trial Cout I t ratrllued [hc zr(rcused undt'r Scctiotr 251 Cr.P.C., and conviclt'tl him and not passed anv iru:trd t:ontpoundil'rg the oflenccs, as sltc]1, [)rescnce t.rf clefacto t--ottrplaitl a n t ls not nece ssary. The ot lrt r c(r11le Iltion oi'l)eLitioncl- is that tlrc secotld limb of Section 5.)tr of IPC is a rron colnpoLlnd,rlrlc ol'fcncc rvhich is punishabl I Llllro sevtrn vritrs, ils stt,:h, it is it u'arrztttt case and he has to tlc e raminc'd under Scctir,n 235 Cr P.C, u'hr:reas, r,r'ith regarr:l ro amondmcnt to Section :,O(r ol lPC, therc is no G O, passcri lv lhe State Go\rerllmcnl :rccclttirrg t.he amcndment as on tocl:r'r in 'f c langanzr Strle. The prrrtishnttttIt prcscribed for the offenr:r't;ndcr Sectiot'r SOLI of IPC i-.r onlv 1.r.r.o 1'cars. As such, there erre tr I tner its in the corlientiorrs rif petitiotl<-'r. Furlhermore, petitiorlt r- ls not the dc'tircto c,rrnrl:ri nit Ir t itt'rd I-tc is not a party to thc 1:r'rcecrlings, he is on[-v a u'i-,t'tcss ro thc said proceedings. This 1>ctition ls liled after 1 I 1'ea'rs rtf passing thc docket order by 1i1s rrtzrl Oour[ and no reasons rrre assigncd by the petitioner for thc said rlelay As such, there art: no mcrits in this petition and thc's;amc is liable tri be disrnissc<1. ) }, 4 (

7. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is dismisscci Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/. M NAGAMANI, AS STANT REGIS //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Vl Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal 2. The station House Officer, Jeedimetla Police Station, Cyberabad 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

4. K. Srinivasa Rao, S/o K. Venkateswara Rao, Aged 60 years, Occ : Employee in Voltas Ltd., R/o H.No.48-4214, Ganesh Nagar, HMT Post, Hyderabad- 500054

5. One CCto Sri V S R M V Prasad Sanaka, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies ADK HIGH COURT DATED:1 810712025 ORDER CRLP.No.4730 of 2025 DISMISSING THE CRLP g r *ia SD{ )T( ( o () ilS rl0tt & sparcuEo * i) \ * a