The High Court · 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 Calendar Case No. 4194 of 2025 before the learned XVI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri B SHASHIDHAR, Advocate for the Petitioner and Ms. Shalini Saxena, the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRTMINAL PETITION No.7534 OF 2o2s ORDER: This Criminal Petition is hled by the petitioner accused No.1 seeking to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.4194 of 2O2S on the file of the learned XVI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nampally, I-{yclerabad, registered for the offences under Sections 18912), 126(2lr, 292 read with Section t90 of the Bharariya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short "the BNS"}.

2. Heard the submissions of Sri B.Shashidhar. Iearned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1 - State.

3. The learned petitioner connsel has submitted rhat the petitioner is facing false allegations and that they were conducting a temple procession after obtaining due permission from the policc but stiil the police have apprehended him and rcgistered a false complaint, on which the present CC has been taken up. I{e further submitted that the petitioner is on dialysis, as on the date of alleged offence also he was in hospital and that the story of prosecution is false. t{e therelbre, prayed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.419.1 of 2025. 2 \i \

4. The learned Assistant public prosecutor has submitted that there are allegations pointing out that the petitioner has not taken any permission to conduct procession

5. Perused the record.

6. The record discloses that Sri Mattam Srikar is Matadhipathi of Malrappa trust board and that they have been performing Mahashivaratri festival all through the clay and night and onihe eve of such festival on the ncxt day yearly performance of rituals was being conducted for the past so many decades and that they used to take permission of Mangalhat police station and the poiice personnel have been providing securi[z by arranging a sub-inspector and a constable every year.

7. The complaint is hled against the Matthadhipathi, devotees and the petitioner herein, alleging that on the date ol_procession, the petitioner and others without having any valid permission from the police department, have gathered at the premises and created nuisance and obstructed free flow of traffic.

8. The case of the petitioner is that he could not personally visit the Mangalhat police station, since he is under the treatment of Dialysis, as he lost both kidneys. While so, on 27.O2.2O25 a7so, the \{4angalhat police station has provided security by posting 3 sub-inspector Sri Shaik Aslam and one constable who guarded the entire ritual of procession, till the completion of rituals by

07.3O pm and further that they have recorded the entire procession and have taken care to avoid any sort of disruption but lo Lhe utter shock of devotees and Matthadhipathi, Mangalhar police station have fabricated a false complaint in the name of 2nd respondenl who is the constable.

9. He submits that the sub-lnspector and Constable were very much present along with the devotees during the entire ritual of deit5z's procession. Thus, the petitioner alleges that based upon the fallacrous complaint of the 2nd respondent, the Mangalhat police have regisLered a FIR No.75 of 205. Based on which, the present CC has been registered.

10. The petitioner counsel says that the petitioner is bed ridden and is under the treatment of Dialysis as on the said date and hc never visited the said temple premises also for the festival and thus, a false case has been foisted against him. In support of his case, he has filed a set of documents. His contention is that the temple authorities oblained permission for conducting procession. While the Public Prosecutor contends that there was no permission for the procession and that the allegations are true. 4

11. A perusal of the medical certihcates and reports filed by the petitioner reveals that he is a known case of ESRD FOR MHD M6.5 and is on regular Hemodialysis from 16tr Aprll, 2O2l and that he requires hemodialysis thrice a week under Aarogyasri Scheme at Viswas Hospital. The reports annexed to the certihcates also pertain to the diagnostic tests showing that he is found to have high renal parameter and that he has undergone two sessions of HD (Hemodialysis) along with conservative management and the date of the prescription shoq,s that he was admitted from O4.O9 .202O to 07 .O}.2O2O at Hyderabad Kidney and Laparoscopic Centre and it shows that he was advised Hemodialysis thrice in a week. There are sevcral other prescriptions given by several other doctors including Sathya Kidney Centre and other hospital. The latesl document is the letter dated 09.06.2025 issued by Dr.Rajaram, Nephrologist and Medical Director of Viswas Hospitals stating that the petitioner requires hemodialysis trice a week.

12. They have also hled a copy of the application seeking permission and the acknowledgment received on their application. At page No.39 of the material papers submitted by the petitioner, it is the letter addressed by the Temple Authorities to ACP, Gqshamahal Division, Hyderabad seeking permission for \- f, processi.on of Lord Mallikharjuna Swamy at R'K'Pet, Manglahat, I{yclerabad and it is mentioned that the Mallikharjqna Seva Procession and Pooja Ceremony r.r'iil be held on 27 'O2 2025 aL Razdharkhanpet (Chistichaman) from 07.00 PM to 10 O0 PM and that the procession starts from temple to surrounding localities and sought for necessary bandobast arrangements for smooth and peaceful seva procession and has also hled the receipt to show that thel'paid an amount of Rs. 145 / -.

13. tle has also hled copies of several such applications for permission since 2020 and also the receipts' By hling al1 these applications seeking permission and the receipts, the petitioner could place it on record that the temple has been conducting such ritual every year for the past many years eversince 2012' Further, I the pctitioner could also put it on record that he required dialysis thrice a wee k through the medical record hled by him'

15. Irurthcr, it is borne out by record that accused No'2 in this case has filecl Crl.P.No.7734 of 2025 to quash the proceedings agains[ him and the said petition has been aliowed by a Bench of this Court, vicle its order dated 30'06'2025' I / 6

16. In the said circumstances, this Court is of the opinion rhat the pctitioner could make ou t sufficient grounds to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.4194 of 2O2S on the hlc of the leanrecl XVI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad.

16. In the result, the Criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner - accused No.1 in c.c.No.4 r94 of 2025 on the file of the learned XVI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand cioscd To, SD/. K.BHAVANI SWAMY s ANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER

1. The XVI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nampally' Hyderabad- 2. The Station House Officer, Mangalhat Police Station, Hyderabad. 3. One CC to Sri B Shashidhar Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies GR/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:1410712025 ORDER CRLP.No.7534 ot 2025 _,? -i 11 .- ,,;ii-C o r i,r 31JllL M ,.i.(i r\ () + .d * otcIp THE CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED rt- 3 I