Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment vs Bhajan Lal, u'hich laid down guidelines for quashing an FIR. The

Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana al Hyderabad

2. H. Thippaji, PC- 9715, P.S. Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. ..RESPONDENT No.2/DE-FACTCO MPLAINANT 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 all further proceedings pending against the Petitioner/Accused in C.C. No. 6811 of 2024 pending on the file of the XVll Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Sectiofl 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 all further proceedings in c.c. No. 6811 of 2024 pending on the file of xvll Addl. chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad registered for alleged offences uls. 279,336, 290 I.P.C. and Section Y 183 and 184 of the M.V. Act against the Petitioner/Accused including the personal appearance of the Petitioner/Accused, pending disposal of the present Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri ENUGANTI SUDHANSHU RAO, Advocate for the Petitroner and the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None appeared for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER l, i w I I I i I i I I THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAI PETITIoN No.4562 of 2o25 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed seeking.the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.6817 of 2024 on t}:,e hle of the learned XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 279,336 and 29O of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPCJ and Sections 183 and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de facto complainant iodged a complaint on 14.Ol .2024 , at 4:3O PM stating that the complainant, a tech team operator, reported that a Twitter video showed a Lamborghini with license plate bearing No.TS09GD9777 drtving recklessly and causing noise pollution on Road No.1 in Jubilee Hills. The complainant requested that action be taken against the driver according to the law.

3. Heard Sri E. Sudhanshu Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Pubiic Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents - State. 2 sI(s,J Crl.P.No.4562 of 2025

4. I-earned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence, as alleged in the final report and that the allegations do not attract the provisions of Sections 279, 336, and 29O of the IpC and Sections 1g3 and 1g4 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He further submitted that the petitioner has no connection with the allegations, and respondent No.2 lodged the cornplaint based on a video seen on Trvitter, without being present at the scene. He contended that the final report states that the car remains in its original manufacturecl condition, with no unauthorized modifications. Despite this, the respondent police has hled a final report for the aforementioned offences. The petitioner was neither driving the vehicle nor present at the scene, and is arraye.d as an accused person only because he is the owner of the vehiclc. There are no independent witnesses or police personnel wlto can corroborate the allegations, and the driver of the vehicle has not been identilied.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, u'hich laid down guidelines for quashing an FIR. The present case lalls under the category of malicious prosecution, as the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala Iide and is maliciousll instituted with an ulterior motive. Therefore, he w 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.4562 of 2O2s prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the pelitioner by allowing this criminal petilion.

6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, stating that the Investigating Officer coliected CCTV footage from the scene of the offence as well as from the petitioner's house. He further submitted that there is ample evidence on record to show that the petitioner drove the vehicle independently and in a reckless manner. Therefore, there are serious allegations against the petitioner that require tria1. Hence, at this stage, quashing the proceedings against the petitioner does not arise and prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition. 7 . In light of the submissions made by the both learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the case was registered based on a Twitter video, wherein the alleged car was shown being driven in a reckless manner. However, the report submitted by the Police does not specify the exact time of the offence. The report merely states that the video was observed at 16:OO hours, but the time of the alleged offence is not mentioned. Furthermore, there is no evidence on record to substantiate that the vehicle in question was driven negligently in i 4 sKs,J Crl.P.No.4562 of2O25 the said arezr. Neither independent witnesses nor CCTV footage from the relevernt location has been referred to in the charge sheet. Although the learned Additional public prosecutor con[ended that the Investigating Ofhcer had collected CCTV footage, including from the petitioner's house, this footage has not been referenced in the final report. The only witnesses examined by the police are the complainant.

8. The charge sheet indicates that the presence of two mediators, L.W.2 and L.W.3, was secured to observe the scene of the offence. However, it is explicitly noted that no incriminating material was tound to seize, nor was the CCTV footage of the area obtained. Ttris omission further undermines the claims against the petitioner.

9. It is pertinent to note that there is insufhcient evidence to establish that the petitioner drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Moreover, the charge sheet lails to mention the specihc date and time of the offence, apart from stating that the video was observed at 16..20 hours. Whether the alleged offence occurred on the mentioned date or time remains unclear, and this ambiguity renders the charge sheet devoid of essential material particulars. SKS,J Crl.P.No.4562 of2025

10. In light of the lack of substantial evidence, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner amounts to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed. 1 1 . In view thereof, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.681l of 2024 on tlr.e hie of the learned XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed. Miscellaleous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed I To, //TRUE COPY// SD/.N.SRIHARI DEPUry REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The XVll Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,Hyderabad.

2. The station House officer, porice station, Jubilee HiIs. Through public prosecutor. High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad

3. One CC to SRt. ENUGANTI SUDHANSHU RAO Advocate [OpUC] 4. Two CCs to Additional public prosecutor,High Court of Telangana IOUTI 5. Two CD Copies / rbUuas HIGH COURT DATED: 1610412025 ORDER CRLP.No.4562 of 2025 (r (J t * lHE Slri;, ,J:\, 1 t JlJt 2t25 ,,> c)-\ jpAr ALLOWTNG THE CRIMINAL PETITION g /,b, ft A" 1 /2