The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that iri the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in S.C- No. 66 of 2017 (S.C. No 198 of 2012) pending on the file of the court of the ll Metropolitan sessions Judge, Hyderabad, against the Petitoner/A-4, for the offences under Sections 147, 144' 3OZ rtw t+g teC rlw tZOla; IPC and Sec. 25 (1) (B) of Arms Act, is liable to be quashed. .A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of crimlnal Petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including arresuappearance of the_ petiiioners/A4 in S.C.No.66 ot 2017 (S.C. No. 198of 2012) pending on the file of ine Court of the ll Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad against the Petitoner/A-4, for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 302 tlw 149 IPC rlw 120(8) IPC and Sec. 25 (1) (B) of Arms Act, pending disposal of the main Criminal petition. This Petition comlng on for hearing, upon perusing tl t Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argumen.t of Sri Mohmmad Abdu{Kalamsiddiqui,AdvocateforthePetitionerandSriE)anesh'Assistant Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana' H I erabad on behalf of the Respondent No.1 The Court made the following: ORDER: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.5982 OF 2o25 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/ accused No.4 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in S.C.No.66 of 2Ol7 (old S.C.No.19B of 2Ol2l on the file of the learned II Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hydcrabad (for short, "the trial Court") for the offences punrshable under Sections 147, 148, 3O2 r lw 149 of the lndian Penal Code r/v,r t 20(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1)(B) of Arms Act.

2. The petitioner herein is accused No.4 and respondent No.2 herein is the de faclo complainant before the trial Court. For the sake of 6onvenience hereinafter parties are referred to as accused No.4 and the complainanL.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on O4.02.2OI1 at 0O:45 hours, LW. t, who is the resident of H.No. l9-3-2O3 /84, situated at Madan Khan Colony, Jahanuma, Hyderabad lodged a handwritten complaint stating that on 03.O2.2}ll at about 22:O0 hours, her husband went out of the house accompanied by a 'l locality person by name Sarfaraz, to go tc Dargah Yousufain situated at Nampally, on motorcycle beari r 3 Reg.No.Ap 12-K- 5608, u,hich belongs to Sarfaraz. At about 2l : 15 hours Sarfaraz ir-rformed her on phone that somc unknc ivn persor-rs have attacked her husband u,ith knivcs near Tac 1 an X Roads whrle thcy rvere returning from Dargah Yousufair-r 'l am pall,r,. At that time Sarfaraz was driving the motorcycle and rer husband was a pillion rider, due to which, her husband recei cd severe bleeding irluries. Immediately, LW.1 along r.r,ith he - family members including her husband's brothers namely A; am Khan, Mohsin Khan and others rushed to Tadban X Road s li,here they found her husband was in a pool of blood. Immel ately, they shifted her husband to Osmania General Hospital irr treatment. On dxamination, the doctors declared him dead. In that incident, LW. 1 strongly suspected the complicity of Im' Ln, Habeeb Basith, Dayarand Yadav, Saleem, Ayub Misri, Fer rz, Asad, Habeeb Mustafa, Gaffar 4 . Basing on the con tents of the said c r mplaint, LW -27 - Inspector of Police, Police Station Bahad r -pura, Hyderabad registered a case in Crime No.27 /2Ol1 under lections 747 , 148, : I i I I I , l i i I I I I E I -) 302rlw 149 I.P.C r/w 120(B) IPC and Section 25(l) (B) of Arms Act and issued express FIR under intimation to all concerned and took up investigatron. The same u,as taken on fiie and numbered as S.C.No.l98 of 2012. The said session's case was transferred and re-numbered as S.C.No.65 of 2017.

5. Heard Sri Mohmmad Abdul Kalam Siddiqui, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ accused No.4 and Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-Slate and peruscd the record

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that respondent No.2 filed a false complaint against the petitioner with false and frivolous allegations. The petitioner is no where associated over the case. The complaint vvas lodged against ottrer people and later the name of the petitioner was added and he is arrayed as accused No.4 in the said FIR. As could be seen from the averments of the complaint, there is no overt act against the \.-I Eetitioner and the cEtrge sheet discloses that on the date of alleged incident, the petitioner r,r,as not present at the scene of offence. 4

7. Learned counsel further submitted tlr Lt in S.C.No.66 of 2077 the trial has been completed and accus. -l Nos.1 to 3, 6 ar-rd 7 were acquitted long back and the case of l1 c pctitioner stands on the same footing, hence, seeks to arllou, ,i r: present criminal pctition b1, quasl-ring the proceedings in S.C. N r .66 of 2077 . B. To support his case, learned couns( rclied upon the lollowing Apex Court judgments (ll Radheshgam Kejriwal us. Strr le of West Bengal and anotherl (ii) State of Karnataka us. .L Munisuamg and others2

9. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor tppearing for the respondent- State would submit that unless ar d until full-fledged trial is being conducted by examining the ,r,idence and facts before it, the truth will not be elicited. Hen r e seeks to dismiss this criminal petition. / '1:orty: scc:sr 'lrszzy z scc noo I I r I I a 5

10. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and upon perusing the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner calling for adjudication are pure questions of fact which mav be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial Court and while doing so, the point of law and factual aspects can be raised before the learned trial Court which would more appropriately looked into by the trial Court in this case and only upon conclusion of trial, the truth comes to light. 1 1 Accordingly, this criminal petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. , SD/. T.SRINIVASAREDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// I SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 J 4 5 The ll Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The Station House Officer, Bahadurpura Police Station, Hyderabad' One CC to Sri. Mohmmad Abdul Kalam Siddiqui, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana' Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD CoPies PSK /PSL Y.? HIGH COURT DATED:1711112025 '\ / 1- t 2 I ,rlt Zffi S,:. TCY C)I.\ t' t ORDER CRLP.No.5982 ot 2025 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION \r3"[ -D Co