The High Court · 2025

2. Smt. Medapally Priyanka, Wo. Rohit alias Rony Goel, Aged Occ. Govt.'Em-ploy6e, Rio. H. No.4-1-241102, Flat No.202' Hyderabad. About 37 years, King Koti, ..RESPONDENT/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 call for the entire records pertaining to the Proceedings in FlR. No. 62'ot 2025, DATED 24-03-2025, On the file of P.S. Hussaini Alam, Hyderabad District, for the offences punishable under Sections 75, 78 ot BNS' 3(1)(s) SC ST (POA) ACT and Quash the same against the Petitioners herein. 2 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 grant stay of all further proceedings including arrest. of the petiiionerin FlR.1o.62of 2025, DATED 24'03-2025, Onthefileof P.S. Hussaini Ahm, Hyderabad District, for the offences punishable under Sections 75, 78 of BNS, 3(i) (s) SC ST (POA) ACT, Against the Petitioner, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri NARAPARAJU AVANEESH, Advocate for the Petitioner and SRI M VIVEKANANDA REDDY, the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.7153 9F 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner - accused No.2 seeking to quash the FIR No.62 of 2025 on the file of the P.S.Hussaini Alam, registered for the offences under Sections 75 ,. afid 78 -rrt Bharatiya Nyaya sanhita,:2-023 (f-o,r short "the ENS").ang Seetion 3(t)(s) of SC/ST:(POA} &, r ' -" ' ' '

2. Heard the submissions of Sri Naraparaju Avaneesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State.

3. The learned petitioner counsel has submifted that the petitioner herein is not at all concerned wifh the alleged offence, , The only. altegation made .by the. complainant in her complaint is : ' that the petitioner has not acted upon on her complaint, which was filed against another director working at MGMH. He further submifted that taking advantage of her caste, she is in the habit of lodging complaints against many a people. Even as per her allegations, the petitioner has not abused her in the name of caste in the public view and thus, the offences under SC/ST Act do not 2 I attract to the present case. He further argued that the complainant is in the habit of raising false atlegations and is also not diligent in .'.,' ,. 'i- ,discharging her duties and rvd.s issued aiiiund 37 memos during her ,.: ,, :... ,service as Junior Assistant in MGMH. He further argued that on

06.02.2025, the de facto complainant herself has written a letter to the Superintendent of MGMH Hospital who is the petitioner herein . , Qeeking apology and assured that she would be carefut in future by ...,'. being cor:diat with everyone. He further argued that on 21.0g.202s, the de facto complainant was surrendered from MGMH, peflaburj , . and has sought for necessary instructions from the District ":.. her and also the apology letter addressed by her woutd squarery point out that the petitioner has not at all committed the said offence . and that the petitioner is facing false allegations in the hands of the ' de facto complainant. He therefore, prayed to quash the FIR against the petitioner.

4. '.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has submitted that ''* the investigation is in progress and that it would not be proper to interfere with the same in this case.

5. Perused the record. firr) 3

6. The record discloses that the de facto complainant has .. Iodged a comptaint dated 24.03.2025 alleging that the petitioner hab failed to take necessary action against one Mr.Shakeel who was ; .ts. serving as Assistant Director at sexual harassment against her petitioner has harassed her and caste. The letter dated 06.02.2025 also figures in the record, wherein the de facto cornplainant has sgught apology from the, , '.::_ petitioner herein stating that she wants to withdraw all the comptaints leveled against the Assistant Director of the Hospital and that there was some misunderstanding with him.

7.":. ' The petitioner" herein -is', the Government Maternit! Hospital and the ,de facto complainant is of the working as Junior Assistant in the said hospital.

8. The petitioner .has also filed one of the enqr.liry reports against the de facto complainant wherein it was concluded that she \ \ , , has lack of interest towards her section work and is found negligent '. . .; ....'1. r1'.. ", towards her legitirnate'dulies,'Slt.the-se a.:pgcl,,: cap be investig3tgd ,. '. ..,'':.:: .:i,;,1 ii', ,. .r! ? 4

9. The petitioner counsel strongly contends that the material on record would disprove the allegations leveled by the de facto complainant against the petltioner, but this Court cannot go into the evidentiary aspects at this'stage. The investigation is still in " : -r:- , i , progress and the p.glice. are yet to file charge sheet. This Court is ......, . .. ... , I.. :--'... :; ,: ,l , ," not incliried to.interfere with the investigation of the potice, however, : ,i.'1: ' :' . .: .. ..'. .;' .: on their thorough investigation, if the allegations are found to be : false they can as well file final report to that effect. " 10. with the said observations, this petition is disposed of directing the police concerned to conclude the investigation at the .:-.J earliest, strictly in accordance with law, without taking any coercive ,.steps against the petitioher: Furthdq the petitioner shall co-operate, ; l ;,;,, ' ' with the lnvestigating'Officer as and when required for the purpose '.:-. of investigation. Miscellaneous applicatigns pending, if any, shalt stand closed. \ ,,TRUE COPY" SDT. A.PRATHIMA DEPUTY REGISTRAR ,\\ 1t \ i SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, HussainiAlam Police Station, Hyderabad. 3. One CC to SRI NARAPARAJU AVANEESH Advocate [OPUC] :/ --..i.-_.,:: '= Tetangana, Hyderabaa. ioui --

4. Two ccs to sRr puBlrc pRosEcuroR, High court for the state of 5. Two CD Copies l , GR/PSLw \ / HIGH COURT DATED:04108t2025 \ \ ORDER CRLP.No.7153 of 2O2S I I O T6 IIBU IG z a .L t DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION i I 86P(ob ,e6'