The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad The Sub lnspector of Polrce P_S Hayathanagar, Rachakonda Commissionerate P. Suresh, Occ Sub lnspector of Police, Age Not Known, p.S Hayathanagar, Rachakonda Commissionerate. ...Respondents/Complainant Petition under section 482 of cr.p -c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandrrm of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to quash the Proceedrngs in cc No.3s8 ot 2024 on the file XIV Additionat Metropolitan Magistrate at Hayathnagar against the petitioner/Accused-7 in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 2OF 2024 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 stay all further Proceedings in CC No.35g ot ZOZq on the fite XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Hayathnagar inc{uding his appearance before the trial coi.rrt during the pendency of the piesent euaih petiiion in the interest of justice. Thas Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri Kuncha Sunil Goud, Advocate for the Petitioner and sri E Ganesh, Assistant public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No 1 & 2_ The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JT'STICE K. LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PETITION No.6892 of 2o24 ORDER: Heard Sri Kuncha Sunil Goud, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/Accused No.7 and Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1.

2. This Criminat Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the 'Cr.P.CJ to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.358 of 2024 pending on the Iile of the XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Hayathnagar.

3. Petitioner herein is accused No.7 in the said Ca-lendar Case. The offences alleged against him are under Sections 419 and 42O of t.Ile Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'lPC) and Section 8 of TS Public Examinations (Prevention of Mal Practices) Act, 1977 (for short "the Act"). KL,J Crlp.No.6892 "2024 2 +. On the complaint lodged by the respondent No.3, police registered a case in Cr.No. 182 of 2024 against the petitioner and other accused.

5. The altegation leveled against the petitioner herein is that he has taken an amount of Rs.S,0OO l- from accused Nos.4 and 5 for helping them. Except that, there is no other allegations.

6. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of respondent No.3- complainant as L.W. 1 and eye witness as L.Ws.2 to 5.

7. It is relevant to note that Section 2(e) of the Act deals with definition of public examination and the same is extracted hereunder "Sections 2, of the Act: I, Publb Examination means anA examination either qtalifging or competitiue conducted bg the Gouernment or ang other authoity or bodg or ang Uniuersitg under ang La*- for the time being in force for auard.ing or grantirq ong Degree, Diploma Certifi.cate or ang other academic distinction or for qualifuing for ad.mission into ang coutse of studg or for selecting for appointment or regularization or promotion to anA post in public seruice and includes ang otlter examination declared bg the Gouemment by Notifcation to be a pubiic examination." KL,J Crlp.No.6892 of 2024 3

8. Perusal of complaint and charge sheet would reveal that there is no public examination in the present case' As per the charge sheet, on t9'O2'2O24' L'W'l received information that some persons were present in a lodge to attend the Abroad English Qualiff Exam on instead of other by taking money and cheating the DUOLINGO online exarn. The only allegation leveled against the petitioner is taking an amount of Rs'5'0O0/- from A4 to A5 for hetping them. The contents of the charge sheet lacks the ingredients of the offences al'leged against him' It is also relevant to note that vide orders dated g. O4.1O.2O24, 2O.O8.2O24 and 2O'll'2O24' this Court qrrashed the proceedings in respect of the accused Nos'2 to 6. The petitioner herein is also standing on the same footing to maintain parity, he is also entitled for the same relief.

10. Thus, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner/A7 in C'C.No'358 of 2024 is abuse of process of law. ) KL,J Crlp.No.6892 "2024 4

11. In Bhajan Lal (stated supra!, the Apex Court cautioned that power of quashing should be exercised very sparingly and circumspection and that too in the rarest of rear cases. While examining a complaint, quashing of which is sought, Court cannot embark upon ar enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or in the complaint. The Apex Court in the said judgment laid down certain guidetines/parameters for exercise of powers under Section _ 4g2 of Cr.p.C., which are as under: "(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report complaint, even if they are taken at their face ..,a,lue and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first report and other information materials, if any, accorrpanying the )r' KL,J Crlp.No.6892 of 2024 5 FIR do not d'isclose a cognizable offence, justiflring an investigation by police offrcers under Section 156(1) of the Code excePt under an order of a Magistrate within the Purrflew Section 155(2) of the Code' the uncontroverted (3) Where made in the FIR or allegations complaint and the evidence collected same do not disclose in suPPort of the of anY offence and the commission make out a case against the accused (4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute onlY a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code' (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or comPlaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no Prudent Person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is Crlp.No.6892 KL,J :2:024 6 slrfficient ground for against the accused. procceding proceeding criminal to the (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Cocle or the Act concerned (under which a instituted) continuance of the proceedings and./ or where there is a specific provision in the Code or Act conr efricacious redress r.;,* l;,#.T.? the aggrieved party. institution 1S (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or u/here the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeailce on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.,, The said principle in catena of decisions. was reiterated by the Apex Court L2. As discussed supra, the contents of charge sheet lacks the ingredients of the offences leveled against the KL,J Crlp.No.6892 of 2024 7 petitioner. Thereafter' continuation of proceedings tn C.C.No.358 12024 against the petitioner is an abuse of process of law. 13. In the light of the aforesaid discussion' the present proceedings in C'C'No'358 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 419 and 42O of IPC and Section 8 of the Act cannot go on and it is abuse o[ process o[ law'

14. AccordinglY, this Criminal Petition ts allowed and the proceedings in C'C'No'358 of 2024 pending on the file ofthexlvAdditionalMetropolitanMagistrateat Hayathnagar, are herebY quashed' There shall be no order as to costs' As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions' if any' pendir€' in the Criminat Petition shall stand closed' ,/TRUE COPY" ASSISTAI$+-Xi K VITHA STRAR / SECTION OFFICER To,

1. 2. J, 4 5 Two CD CoPies ADK/gh ry l[ii[$['n".$,Hliiiu#"3[niifi::S'ff'fl 'HI!'IIHH::'"' Ell":ti3 5?'*l."n' Sunir Goud' Advocate [oPucl _-i HIGH COURT DATED:10101t2025 ORDER CRLP.No.6892 of 2OZ4 ( q ) c (.) 1 r{e STA r€ o A 2 4 rtB 2[25 t D€sPA rc$ t9 7 ]' , ALLOWING THE CRLP WITHOUT COSTS