The High Court · 2025

1 Mr. .Gautam Ganeriwal, S/o Vinod Ganeriwal, Aged about 38 years, Occ- Business, Ryo- M/S Agarwal Foundries Pvt Ltd, Door No. -5-4-83, 2nd Floor, TSK Chambers. Rama Towers. M.G. Road, Secundrabad. AND 1 2 ...PETtTtONER/ACCUSED(S) The State of Telangana, Represented through, SHO, Mahankali Police 9Jation, Rep. by_Public Prosecutor at High eourt of Telangana, At Hyderabad Mr. Awanindra Kumar, S/o M.A Kumar, Aged about 56 years, Occ- lntelligence Officer, Office of Directorate General of GSt lnte igence, New Delhi - ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in charge sheet vide C.C No. 1706 OF 2020, pending on the file Honorabte Xl Addt. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, At Secundrabad, in so far as Petitioner/ Accused No_1 herein is concerned, in the interests of justice and pass l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminat Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in chargesheet vide C.C No. 1706 OF 2020, pending on the file Honorable Xl Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Secundrabad, in so far as Petitioner/ Accused No.1 herein is concerned and pass This Petition comtng on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri KANDURI KOUSHIK ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri. Jilhender Rao Veeramalla the public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri Domnic Fernandes(Standing Counsel for Central Government GST) Advocate for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE Smt.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA "{ ORDER: CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5776 of 2025 This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.1706 of 2020 on the file of Xl Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, for the offences under Sections 332, 186, 506 and 504 react with 34 lPC.

2. Heard Sri Koushik Kanduri, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No. l-State and Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has subrnitted that there are disputes between both the parties i.e., de factc complainant and the petitioner herein and thus, both of them have filed cases against each other. lt is alleged that the petitioner herein has mis-behaved with the Government officials and physically ass;:ulted an officer, resulting in injury. But, the said allegations are fitlse and that the petitioner herein has not committed any such act. Ht_. also submitted that the quash petitions filed by accused Nos.2 and i) were allowed by a coordinate Bench of this Court. He, therefore prayed to pass similar orders against the petitioner herein. .--a- 2 EID,J C.l.P. No.5776 ol a025

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted to pass appropriate orders.

5. Perused the record

6. The proceedings against accused Nos.2 and 3 in the same case i.e. CC No.1706 of 2O2O were quashed vide a common order in Crl.P. Nos.11454 and '1 1984 of 2023. The facts of the case in brief are that when the lnspecting Team was conducting survey, some altercation took place and in that, the petitioners in Crl.P. No.1'1454 of 2023 beat the respondent No.2 therein causing hurt to his upper lip and also caused injury to Sri Manish Kumar Yadav, who was one of the Deputy Director of Directorate General of GST lntelligence on his right fore-arm.

7. lt was observed by the learned single Judge that when the officials were consisting of eleven and more so when they were in dominating position, being the officers of the Central Government, the possibility of the petitioners therein being three in number causing hurt to the officers is too remote because when the petitioners therein are aggravating the situation, the other officers would not keep quite. Further, there were no specific overt acts attributed to the petitioners therein. Except bald and omnibus allegations, there was no inEriminating material to find fault with the petitioners in that petition. /' \ 3 EIO,J C.t.P No.57l6ot2025 Therefore, the court has observed that there is no prima facle case against the petitioners therein for the alleged rtffences and the proceedings against the petitioners therein were quershed.

8. It is to be observed in this regard that the petitioners in Crl.p. Nos. 1 1454 of 2023 were accused Nos.2 and 3, whereras the petitioner herein is accused No.1 and the allegations in the ccmplaint point out that the petitioner misbehaved with the Government officials and even physically assaulted Sri Ramdhan Dagar, lRS, oner of the Deputy Director General of GST lntelligence, which resulte<i into injury in the inside part of the upper lip and he also physically ar;saulted one Sri Manrsh Kumar Yadav, lRS, one of the Deputy Drre:ctor General of GST lntelligence, resulting in into injury on his riglrt fore-arm. Thus, there are specific allegations against the petitiont:r herein that he man-handled the Government Officials and also created obstacle in government work. Hence, the same relief cannot bi-. extended to the petitioner herein. The recitals of the charge sheet thus point out specific overt acts against the petitioner and there itre statements of LWs.2 to 4, who are listed as eye witnesses in tlre charge sheet. Thus, the veracity of these witnesses needs to be tersted during the course of trial. Therefore, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings. However, it is deemed appropriate to dispense with :he attendance of the petitioner before the trial court. ) \ 4 ETD,J Cn.P. No.5r,6 ot 7025

9. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of dispensing with the attendance of the petitioner before the triar court provided he is represented by a counser on every date of hearing before the kiar court and he shafl appear before the triar court as and when his presence is required during the course of trial. lt is also observed that the matter pertains to the year 2020. Hence, the rearned rVragistrate is directed to dispose of the matter at the earliest in view of the circular instructions issued by the High court to prioritize the cases pending for more than 5 years. lVliscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. SD/. S.MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRA //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Xl Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, At Secundrabad. 2- The SHO, Mahankali Police Station, Secunderibad 3. One CC to Sri. Domnic Fernandes(SC of CG GST) Advocate {OpUCl 4. One CC to SRl. KANDURI KOUSHIK Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRl. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Advocate [OPUC] (.Two CD Gopies pxrpsl Pt- HIGH COURT DATED:1711012025 OPDt3{? DISPOSSED OFF CRLP.No.5776 of 2025 q" -d4 iil(ar (rrE SI,q 15. ( IJ 2 il t{[v P5 * ( )F \ SpArCs€ (\( )' {