The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad. fu1che Yedukondalu, S/o Rama Krishna Madhava Rao Aged 36 years, Occ . Sr. Technical Assistant Staff No. NR02101 lndian Space Research Qrganization_National Remote Sensing Centre ISRO - NRSE) Shadnagar Branch, R/o Flat No. '1 Prabhaditya Palace gpartment, Kalyan nagar, - Mothinagar, Yerragadda, Hyderabad. ...Respondents/Complainants 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 docket order dated 11.03.2025 in Crime No. 471 of 2024 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class - Cum- 1 Additional Junior Civil Judge at Sangareddy Consequently, be pleased to direct the learned magistrate accept the remand report of the 2nd Respondent, also direct the 2nd Respondent to surrender before the said court for further action pursuance to the remand report. l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 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 suspend the docket order dated 11.03.2025 in Crime No. 471 of 2024 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class - cum- I Additional Junior Civil Judge at Sangareddy pending disposal of criminal petition. :a::;FF=z \' :/ This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argumenls of Sri N Bhujanga Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.5459 of 2025 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 assailing the docket order dated 11.03.2024 in Crime No.47 1 of 2024 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class -cum- I Additional Junior Civil Judge at Sangareddy, against the petitioner- delacto complainant

2. Heard Mr.N.Bhujanga Rao, learned counsel for petitioner, lr/r.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the impugned remand order, learned Magistrate has made an observation thal'prima-facle accusation under Section 111 (2Xb) of BNS,2023 is not established' and this statement in the order would influence the investigating agency and even after investigation though the organized crime is made out the police concerned are more likely will avoid showing the accusation under Section 111(2Xb) of BNS and such position will cause serious prejudice to the case of the petitioner- de- facfo complainant. Thus, prayed for interference. , 2

4. Learned Additional public Prosecutor would submit in the line of the petitioner and that as the learned Magistrate had expressed the mind, the investigating agency may not investigate the organized crime within the scope of Section i11 (2)(b) of BNS. Thus, necessary clarification may be required.

5. I have perused the materials on record

6. The impugned docket order has been passed in the remand application filed by the investigating officer against respondent No.2_ accused No.1 , with a note that prima-facie accusation under Section 111(2)(b) of BNS is not established. Admittedly, the investigaUon is under progress and at the stage of remand, noting a remark in the order basing on the materials placed for perusal cannot be perse held as improper or illegal. However, making a conclusive remark would be premature as at the remand stage, learned [Magistrate is supposed to prima-facie consider the material and exercise its jurisdiction to remand the accused subject to the pleadings of the prosecution. ln the instant case, respondent No.2-accused No. j has not been remanded by observing that the referred section prima-facie ,,is established" By the pleadings in the present petition it has to be inferred that the conclusive nature of the observation has given a different implication to the stake holders. Y l I l I I I I I i i I I,l I J

7. Nonetheless, it shall be clarified that, this observation in any way bar the investigation in regard to accusation of the organized crime or pertaining to the offence within the scope of Section 2(b) of BNS or any other offence. Further, the investigating agency is expected to conduct objective investigation as against alleged Section of law in the crime proceedings. Additionally, mere referring a penal provision in the crime is not conclusive and the cognizance by the Magistrate concerned shall only set the accused for prosecution.

8. Be that as it may having regard to the apprehension of the petitioner and the submissions of learned Additional Public Prosecutor, this Court deems it appropriate to clarify that the opinion expressed in the impugned order by the learned Magistrate would not in any way bind the investigating agency or restrict the scope of investigation even in respect of the organized offence, if committed by the respondent No.2/ accused No.1 .

9. With this clarification, this Criminal Petition is disposed of Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 4 5 Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sanga The Station House Officer, Sangareddy Town Police Station, Sangareddy Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] One CC to Sri N Bhujanga Rao, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies -'---7'-:?++_,',.'..'- _ _.'_!t>.*...:=.-:.*- .....,-.r}.. - =ltttt . -,r:fi*ar'$i.- :.:r :=,';dij.'' :'i-_!=:_ _ :- :r -- ----' -;,"i+ -_'-4t_!l; HIGH COURT DATED: 22t0412O25 ORDER CRLP.No.5459 ot 2O25 I ,t I o-o -(9 .-., * ".1 IHE ( 1O JUt <lr . \.:::: TC} i. * I l) DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION \Lo