High Court · 2025

AND The State of Telangana,, PS Gachibowti. Cyberabad, Rep by its Public pioseiuiot, Hish C6urt of Telangana Hyderabad' Smt. Pararneshwari,, Sub-lnspector of Police, Gachibowli PS' Cyberabad' ...RESPONDENTS 2 1 2 PetitionunderSection52SofBNSSprayingthatinthecircumstances statedintheMemorandumofGroundsofCriminalPetition,theHighcgurtl3,y U" pf."."O io quasn the F.l.R No 622 of 2025 dated 01 04 2025 on the file of PS c"itioo*ri, cyberabad, registered against Accused No'l and 2/ Petitioners No. 1and2. I.A. NO:2OF 2025 Petition under Section 482 of Cr 'P C praying that in the circumslances statedintheMemorandumofGroundsofcriminalPetition,theH'lghcourtmay to stay all further proceedings in FIR No 622 oI 2025 daled ;;;L;il oi.[q.zozs on the fite of pS Gachibowti. cyberabad against the Petitioners herein in the interest of justice. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of GroundsofCriminalPetitionanduponhearingtheargumentsofSriA.Kranti KumarReddy,AdvocateforthePetitionerandSriM'VivekanandaReddy' Assistant Putiic Prosecutor, High court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad on behalf of the State/ Respondent No ' 1 ' The Court made the following: ORDER: I l THE HONOI'RABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITIOil lto.4954 of 2o25 OR.DER: This (l:riminal Petition is frled seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No.622 of 2025 of Gachibowli Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 289, 125,223,329(31 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short, tsNS') and Section 11(A) read with Section 5(A) of the Aircraft Act, 1934 (for short 'the Act').

2. The t,rief facts of the case are that on O1.O4.2O25, respondent No.2 - Sub In$pector of Police registered the case against the petitioners stating that while on bandobust duty at the main gate of Hyderabad Centra-i University (HCU), the de-facto cornplainant noticed a drone being opcrated in a public area by the petitioners. Upon enquiry, the petitioners failed to produce the requisite license or authorization to operate the' said drone and thereafter attempted to abscond from the loc:ation. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners hled the present criminal petition. SI(sJ Crl.P-IIo-/+9S4 of 2lr'rs

3. Heard Sri A. Kranti Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri M. Vivekanalda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondents-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that none of the alleged offerrces mentioned in the complaint are attracted in the present case and that the complaint merely alleges that the petitioners operated a drone at the main gate of HCU without obtaining the necessary license or permission. He further submitted that the petitioners were operating a nano un[ranned aircraft system, and as per Rule 13 of the Drone Rules, 2O2L, no certificate is required for the operation of such systems. Therefore, flyr.rg the drone without permission does not constitute an offence.

5. [rarned counsel for the petitioners contended that no approval is required for the operation of unmanned aircraft systems in green zones, and the scene o[ offence i.e., HCU main gate falls within a designated green zon€ that does not require prior permission. Therefore, the alleged offences are not applicable to tJle facts of the case and prayed the Court to i ; l ) i I ! I I i 3 SKS,J C.l.P.Ito.4954 of 2O2S quash the procedings against the petitioners by allowing this criminal petition.

6. On the other hand, learned Assistant public prosecutor {iled a colmter stating that the Deputy General Manager of Telangar-ra Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (TGIIC), H.yderabad, had addressed a letter to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Madhapur, Cyberabad, requesring police prot.ection due to obstruction caused by university students of HCU while clearing bushes at the Kancha Gachibowli land. Accordingly, while providing securiqr to TGIIC du dng ttre bush-clearing operation at Kancha Gachibowli, the petitioners allegedly operated a drone withour obtaining a.ny license or permission. He further subm itted that the in.restigation is not yet completed and at this srage, quashing ol'proceedings agailsf the petitioners does not arise. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petltlon.

7. UporL considering the submissions made by both parties and perusal of the material available on record, it is observed 4 t i ; 1 I I i , i 4 sxs., Crt.P.fo..+954 of 2025 that the main allegation against the petitioners is t]1at they operated an unmanned aerial vehicle (drone) near the main gate of HCU wittrout obtaining prior license or permissi'on' However, as per Rr:le 13 of the Drone Rules, 2O2l' a rrano unmanned aircraft systerns are exempt from tJle requirement of certifrcation or permission for operation' The drone of the petitioners falls within this exempted category' Furthermore' the scene of the alleged o:fferrce is situated in a designated grer:rr :zilrre. As per the sail Rules, operation of drones in green zon€s does not require prior approval from any authority. In light of the above, the offences alleged against the

8. petitioners, prima facb do not apply to the facts of the present case. Therefore, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners is nothing trut an abuse of the process of law and the same is liable to be quashed. g. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners / accused Nos'I and 2 in 5 SKI},J CrLP.ro.4954 of 2O2S Crime No.ti22 of 2025 on the file of Gachibowli Police Station, CyberabarJ, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand clost:d. I SD/. K,BHAVANI SWAMY ASSITANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 1 i To, I SECTION OFFICER Hyderabad. oral Metropolitan Masistrate, Kukatpary, prasanthnasar, ' I?:JS:tJt 2. The Station House Officer, Gachibowli police Station, Cyberabgad, 3. One CC to Sri.A.Kranti Kumar Reddy, Advocate tOpUCl 4. One CC to the, pubtic prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, 5. Two CD Copie:r; 2/ PSK /PSL Hyderabad f OLJTI i I I I t I I t I I i I I I HIGH COURT DATED:11rc712025 _,/tr1-:::r_--- -;r.i:. ..--p. rr'- ,t.U" - .,:,:. - :,.1\. .). 0$ c[I 45 /; .i ' \{ .1. ORDER CRLP.No.4954 ot 2025 7 /q 92 ALLOWED THE CRIMINAL PETITION