High Court · 2025

1. State of Telangana, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court Of ...RESPONDENT No.1 2. Smt. Kavali Ramulamma, Wo Rathnaiah, aged about 45 years, Caste. SC- Madiga, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Village, Yennaram, Mandal. Kotepally, Dist. Vikarabad, Pin. 501106 ...RESPONDENT No.2/ DEFACTO - 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 Calendar Case No.24212022 U1s.354,324,323,504 r/w 34 IPC on the file of ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT VIKARABAD, VIKARABAD DISTRICT. t; l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in calendar case No.24212022 U/s.354, 324, 323, 504 r/w 34 IPC on the file of the ADDL JUD|CIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT VIKARABAD, VIKARABAD DISTRICT, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and uporr hearing the arguments of Mr. P. SRAVAN KUMAR, Advocate for the Petitioners and Mr- M VIVEKANANDA REDDY' Assistant Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None Appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4615 ol 20.25 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the the petitioners/accused Nos.l to 4 in proceedings against C.C.No.242 of 2022 on the file of the learned Additional Judiciai First Class Magistrate at Vikarabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 354 and 5O4 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 186O (for short 'rPC1.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 31.05.202 1, respondent No.2l de facto complainant lodged a complaint with the police stating that on 18.05.202 1, her grandsons, Arun Kumar and Goutham Bablu, were playing games when accused A1, A2, and A3 beat the children. When the complainant tried to warn the accused persons against beating the children, they suddenly assaulted her with the intent to outrage her modesty. Upon witnessing the incident, Uppari Anil, Gattumeedi Mogulaiah, and her son, Kavali Ravinder, interrrened and stopped the quarrel. It is further 2 sKs,J Crl.P.No.461S of2025 alleged that ,A3 used filthy language and ,{4 beat her with a stick. 1t -.e'-!l

3. Basing on the said r:omplaint, the police registered a case in Crime No.68 of 2021 for the offences punishablc under Sections 323, 324,354 and 5O4 read with Section 34 of IpC and after completion of inv,:stigation, they filed chzrrge sheet, vide C.C.No.242 of 2022 orL the file of the learnecl Additional Judicial F irst Class Magistrate at Vikarabad. Aggrieved thereby, the petitions/ accused hlcd the prescnt criminal petition.

4. Heard Sri Sravan KtLmar purelia, learned counscl for petitioners/accused and Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing respondcnt No. 1_ State. Though notice senred upon respondent No.2, none appeared on her behalf.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations made in the c omplaint do not constitute any offence, and the prosecutiorr has failed to produce substantial evidence to prove the commission of offences attributed to the "]r I 3 sKs,J C!1.P.No.4615 of 2025 petitioners. He further submitted that there was a delay of 13 days in lodging the FIR, which, according to him, was done with the intention of falsely implicating the pelitioners due to immense political influence and that the petitioners had made representations before the Director General of Police, Telangana State, and the Human Rights Commissioner, Telangana, as they were subjected to social boycott. Therefore, he prayed this Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners by allowing the present criminal petition.

6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed Lhe submissions made by the iearned counsel for the petitioner stating that the case was registered for the offences punishable under Section s 323,324,354 and 5O4 read with Section 34 of IPC and no substantial evidence has been produced for the allegations made in the charge sheet wherein the charge sheet discloses that there is only simple hurt, as such requested this Court for necessary orders.

7. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on I 4 SKS.J Crl.P.No..+6 rS of 2ois '.1 record, the documents filed by the petitioners indicate that the accused were socially bo.ycotted by the d.e_facfo complainant and had submitted rc.presen tations to the concerned authorities, including the Human Rights Commission and the Director General of police, Teiangana. Furthermore, petitioner No.2 had made a representation to the concerned Tahsildar regarding the alleged illega construcdon of a church. In view of the above, the present pr:tition appears to be a counterbrast to those actions.

8. However, there is no mention of any injuries sustained by the complainant, nor has any medical certificate been filecl to substantiate such claims. A piain reading of the complaint reveals that there are no specific allegations indicating that the petitioners_accused comrnitted the aiieged offences. In the absence of any material evidt:nce or averments constituting an offences under Sections 323, 324, 354 and 5O4 ol IpC, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of law and the against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. 9. Accordingly, this Criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners/accused in C.C.No.242 of proceedings I j I II 'g L\,,:-. I 5 sl(s,J Crt.P.No..t6l5 of 2025 2022 on the hle of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Vikarabad, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shail also stand closed SD/.M.NAGAMANI TANT REGISTRAR S //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, RC

1. The Addl. Judicial District. First Class Magistrate at Vikarabad, Vikarabad z The Station House Officer, Kotpally Police Station' Vikarabad Dist' 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor' High Court at Hyderabad' (OUT) 4 One CC to Mr. P. SRAVAN KUMAR' Advocate [OPUC] s Two CD CoPies HIGH COURT DATED: 0810712025 t I : I t TRo 'i 2t, (i '..? \.'... ..:ir,: i rr. \ ,.\ ,,, ti ,'lr' 2025 :: ii t , i; .-<.,'l :,'- t/ -' - )// .. tu /. ^ ).-' : ./,' ORDER CRLP.No.4615 ot 2025 Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is Allowed. t), a i l I F