The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings /trial including the appearance of the petitioner in SC.No 48 ol 2012 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge, for trail of cases under SC's & ST s (POA) Act cum Vll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District. IA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition uncler Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Couft may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in SC 4812012 on the file of Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under SC's. ST's POA Act cum Vll Addl District and Sessions Judge,. R. R. District including appearance of the petitioner. in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. Sarampally Mrudula, appearing on behalf of SRI M.VENKAT RAM REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Jitender Rao Veeramalla, Additional PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TG) The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.575 of 2015 ORDER:- 1. The present revision is preferred aggrieved by the orders passed by the Court of Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act, '1989 -cum- Vll Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, in Crl.M-P.No.243 oI 2013 in S.C.No.4B of 2012, dated 12-O2.2015.

2. Heard Ms.Sarampally Mrudula, learned counsel who argued on behalf of Sri M.Venkat Ram Reddy, learned counsel on record for the petitioner/accused as well as Sri Jitender Rao Veeramalla, the Iearned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State

3. Learned petitioner's counsel submits that the present revision is preferred aggrieved by the orders of dismissal in Crl.M.P.No.243 of 2013 in S.C.No.4B of 2012, daled 12.02.2015, wherein the Discharge Petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Trial Court. She further submitted that initially, Police filed final report stating that there is lack of evidence after thorough investigation However, a Protest Petition has been filed before the Trial Court, pursuant to which, the case was registered and later on, it was committed to the Sessions Court. Subsequently, they have filed a 2 Discharge Petition under which the impugned order is passed. She further submitted that they have information that the defacto complainant has died and that the accused is roaming around the Courts since 2009. She further submitted that there are no merits in the case and hence the Discharge Petition ought to have been allowed by the Trial Court. She therefore prayed to set-aside the impugned order passed by the Trial Court.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that even if the defacto complainant is died, the other witnesses would be there and unless they are examined, the merits of the case cannot be decided. The other arguments of the counsel with regard to Final Report and the Protest Petition are not in dispute.

5. Perused the record. The record discloses that the Police could not collect any evidence. Hence, the case was closed due to lack of evidence and pursuant to the final reporl, the defacto complainant has come up with a Protest Petition, pursuant to which the case was taken on the file and further the Discharge Petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The petitioner's counsel submits that the defacto complainant has died and that there is no evidence to be adduced in this regard to prove any offence against the petitioner and the contention of the petitioner's counsel is that the petitioner is innocent and hence the Discharge Petition should be 3 allowed. The innocence or guilt of the accused would be decided after full-fledged trial. The death of the defacto complainant would not be a ground to discharge the accused. The available witnesses would be produced by the prosecution. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the Trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.243 of 2013, dated

12.02.2015. lt is to be observed in this regard that stay was granted in this case on 21 .01 .2016 and the matter was kept pending since then before the Trial Court. lnterest of Justice would be met if the matter gets a logical end before the Trial Court.

6. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of directing the learned Trial Court to fix up a schedule and commence the trial in S.C.No.48 of 2O12 and dispose of the matter at the earliest. Further it is made clear that since it is a matter pending for more than five years and in view of the circular instructions issued by the High Court, the Trial Court may dispose of the matter at the earliest preferably within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. /iTRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER \ To, 1 The Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SC's & ST's (POA) District & sessions Judge, Rangareddy Act, 1980-cum-Vll Additional Diqlrint

2. The Station House Officer, Alwal Police Station, Cyberabad. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to SRI M.Venkat Rama Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies NVt]/,\IiK v HIGH COURT DATED:2711012025 ORDER CRLRC.No.575 of 2015 I 1rf !;,i; i- i- l-), ;" e') o (_) :,, I 97 t{0\j M * PAT DISPOSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE q J