The High Court · 2025

1. State of Telangana, Through Public Prosecutor at High Court of Telangana 2. Through State Police, Sri. K Janaiah, Sub lnspector of police, Humayun Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad. ... RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the lt/lemorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to Quash the proceedings in CC No.B24 of 2022 on the File of Vl Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, for the offence under Section 269, 188 lPC, Section 51(B) of DM Act and Section 3 and 4 of The Telangana Gaming Act, 1974 againstthe Petitioners/Accused No.1,2, 18 and 21 . LA. NO: 2 OF 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 stay all further proceedings in CC No.B24 of 2022 on the File of Vl Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, for the offence under Seition 269, 188 lPC, Section 51(B) of DM Act and Section 3 and 4 of The Telangana Gaming Act, 1974 against the Petitioners/Accused No.1, 2, 18 and 2'l including the personal appearance of the Petitioners/Accused No.'l , 2, 18 and 21 till pending disposal of the present Criminal petition. 1i.,..- -r"€a t This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusin-q the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argun ents of Sri ABUZAR AHMED KHAN, Advocate for the Petitioners and SRr JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the E espondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER w THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINA L PETITION No.7335 OF 2025 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter 'the BNSS') seeking quashment of the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No. 824 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned Vl Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

2. The petitioners are arrayed as Accused Nos. 1,2, '18 and 21 in the aforementioned Calendar Case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 269, 188 of the lndian Penal Code, 1860, 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, Sections 3 and 4 of the Telangana Gaming Act, 1974.

3. I have heard Mr. Abuzar Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing respondent No.1 -State.

4. The prosecution case in brief is that on 10.05.2021, at about 00:30 hours, while the Police, Humayun Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad, were on patrolling duties, surprised Banjara Snooker Parlour, situated at Masab Tank and found that the said snooker parlour was running at late night hours violating Government orders and further found 2 \:ll{,r, (.t'. l'.Na. 7 3 ) 5 of 2025 x*r.: 40 members inside the Parlour. Basing on the report by the Sub- lnspector of Police, a case in Crime No. 81 o'f 2021 I as been registered and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed confirnlng the accusations in the crime.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that a Coordinate Bench of this Court, in Crl.P.No.1753 ot 2025 in the analogous allegations, having considered the materials, quasl^od the proceedings against the petitioners therein. That apart, except lf re statement of the complainant and the confessional statement of the accused there is nothing to show that the accused No.1 is running fire snooker parlour. Hence, prayed for intervention and quashment of proo,redings 6 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would fa rly submit that this Court had considered the case with similar allegatio"s as in the present petition and passed order in Crl.P.No. 1753 of 2025 and the findings therein are equally applicable to the petitioners.

7. I have considered the submissions of the le lrned counsel and perused the materials on record.

8. Section 195 of the Code of Criminal proce,Jure, 1g73 (,CrpC') stipulates that, in cases involving contempt of the lav,rfl l authority of public servants or offences against publlc justice, the Court may take I I T.- _:_ ,/ t 3 NlR,/ Cr/.1'.N0. 7))5 of 2025 cognizance only upon a complaint made by the concerned public servant Similarly, Section 51(b) of the Disaster l\Ianagement Act, 2005 prescribes penalties for obstructing or refusing to comply with lavuful directions issued by an authority. Proceedings in such cases must be initiated by the competent authority or an officer duly authorized, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Section 60(b) of the Disaster Management Act, which is akin to Section 195 of CrPC. 9 For contextual clarity, Section 2(c) of the CrPC defines a 'cognizable offence' as one in which a police officer may, in accordance with the First Schedule or under any other prevailing law, arrest without a warrant. Section 2(d) defines a 'complaint' as any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with the intention of securing action under the Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence. This definition explicitly excludes a police report

10. ln the present case, the proceedings were initiated on the basis of a police report filed by an officer/public servant, without any disclosure of authorization from the competent authority. This factual matrix reveals that the prosecution is being pursued in a manner inconsistent with the procedure mandated under Section 195 CrPC and Section 60 of the Disaster Management Act. As such, the very foundation of the proceedings stands vitiated. Further, ln regard to accusations under 4 '\ *# .\l R,/ Crr.l'\o 7))5 ot l02i r'gi it Sections 3 and 4 of the Gaming Act, except for the evidence of police officials, no independent witness has been examineC or any material showing that the petitioners are connected to the alle,yed place to make out that they are conducting gaming house or they we e found gaming in a common gaming house. ln these peculiar circumsiances of the case and in absence of any convincing material, continuilg the prosecution, would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 1'l . Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. Consequenfly, the proceedings in C.C.No. 824 of 2022 pending on the, file of the learned Vl Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad are hereby quashed against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 2, 18 e nd 21 . Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed SD/. M. JAWAHAR REDDY ASS|StrANT REGTSTRAR / //TRUE COPY// \R \/ .,t ,I SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Vl Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hyd-.rabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Humayun Nagar police Stat on, Hyderabad 3. One CC to SRt ABUZAR AHMED KHAN Advocate [OpUC] 4 Iryo CCs to SRI PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, Hiqh Court r,rr the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies W GR/gh HIGH COURT DATED:081O712025 .-';' trt,,,. .i. ... [:] I ! itl2l ORDER CRLP.No.7335 ot 2025 .\-..- ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION ,d \ \ i l I I I I I t, I I