Gujaratt aod frI/s.Neeharika InJra.sttttcture Priuate Limited. vs Criminal Petition.

2. Sri Mohd Abdul Rehman, S/o. Mohd lbrahim, Aged 20 years, Occ. Student, R/o. H. No.4-14-115, Hasan Nagar, Bahadurpria, gVO6raU;. -- -'--'"'' Petition under section 4g2 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of crimini.r Fetition, the High c;;.t;;y 9" qt:T9.0 to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/Accuied No.t to s in PRC.No 47412021 on the fire of the court of the chief rrrr"iioporiLn Magistrate, Hyderabad in the interest of justice. ...RESPONDENTS l.A. NO:1OF 2022 Petition under Section 492 of cr.p .c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar Fetition,thl nigt-cor.t rrv be..pleased to stay of ail further proceedings incruding the appelrance of the petitioner/ Accused No.1 to 3 in pRC. No. +z+ t2021 on ttre iite ot tne itriet Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad in the above circumstance of case This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri Mohd Muzaffer ullah Khan, Advocate for the petitioners, sri E-Ganesh, Assistant Public Prosecutor, High court for the state of relangana, Hyderabad on behalf of the State / Respondent No.1 Respondent No.2. and of Sri Uday Kiran, Advocate for the The Court made the following: ORDER: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMTNAL PETITION No.4735 OF 2022 o RDER: This Criminal Petition is l-rled by the petitioners herein seeking to quash the proceedings against them in S.C.No.469 of 2023 on the flle of Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for Trial of JHCBBC, Hyderabad.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 28.08.2021, at about O7:OO hours, the de-factocomplainant was informed that deceased was shifting to nearby hospital as his health was declining. However, when t,rre de-facto complainant saw the deceased, the deceased found dead and accused No.3 told the de-facto complainant that the deceased was hanged to bathroom shower rod with the help of piece of blanket' It is stated that the deceased died in a suspicious manner. Hence, a case was registered uide Crime No.429 of 2O2l before the Chandrayangutta Police and after completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed uide S.C. No.469 of 2023 on the file of Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for Trial of JHCBBC, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under Section 3O6 read with 34 of the IPC and Section 75 of the JJ Act. 2 EW,J CrL.P.No.4735 of2022

3. Heard Sri Mohd Muzaferrulatr Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1 - State and Sri Uday Kiran, Iearned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the petitioners never abetted the deceased to commit suicide. He further contended that even the medical evidence does not support the case of the prosecution. He also contended that though there is no corroborative evidence, the petitioners are implicated in the case with false and fabricated allegations. In this regard, he placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court rn Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State oJ Gujaratt aod frI/s.Neeharika InJra.sttttcture Priuate Limited. Vs. State of Maharashtra o,nd Others2 prayed the Court to allow the Criminal Petition.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that being vexed with harassment made by the accused persons, the deceased took away his life. He further contended that accused No. 1 used to harass the deceased and accused No.2, who is head of the ' zoto 1s; scc ezs lzozry + s.c.n. ro+a 3 EWJ C .P.No.4735 of 2022 institute, has overlooked the same. He also submitted that until the trial is completed, the truth cannot be fully established. Therefore, he prayed that the Court dismiss the criminal petition.

6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that accused No.3 is only care taker and has no role in the alleged offences. He further submitted that as per prosecution, accused No. 1 used to harass the deceased and accused No.2 has never condemned accused No. I over the said act. Therefore, he seeks the dismissal of the criminal petition

7. In view of the rival submissions made by the parties, this Court I I has perused the material available on record. It is alleged that accused No. I used to harass the deceased and accused No.2 has never taken steps against accused No. 1 for his acts. It is noteworthy that accused No.3 is only care taker of the students and.has no role in the alleged ( ( offences. Hence, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of tlre case and also the judgment of the Apex Court in State oJ Haryana and others os. BhajanlaF, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings against petitioner No.3/ac^cused No.3. However, since there are serious allegations against petitioner Nos. 1 and 2/accused Nos. 1 and 2, the proceedings against them are liable to be continued and the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial pryceedings in rt992 supp (l) ScC 335 4 EW.t Ctl P.No.473S of 2022 respect of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2/accused Nos.i and 2 strictly 1n accordance with law.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is partly allowed quashing the proceedings against petitioner No.3/accused No.3 in s.c.No.469 of 2A23 on the file of Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for Trial of JHCBBC, Hyderabad. However, the petition in so far as accused Nos.1 and 2 are dismissed and the proceedings against petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 in S.C.No.469 of 2023 on the file of Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for Trial ofJHCBBC, Hyderabad, shall be continued. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed To, //TRUE COPYII SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL OEPUry REGISTRAR !CTION OFFICER Btast Cases, Nampaity, HiaJriula. - vvq'v rvr Lrrqr '1. The Additionar Metroporitan sessions Judge for triar or rro,,"" Hiilrs Bomb 2. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 3 The Station House officer, chandrayangutta porice station, Hyderabad. 4. One CC to Sri. Mohd Muzaffer Ullah Khan, Advocate tOpUCl 5. One CC to Sri Uday Kiran, Advocate tOpUCl 6. One CC to the Public prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad [OUT]

7. Two CD Copies. PSK /psl w I I I i l l l I HIGH Court DATED:07103t2025 ORDER CRLP.No.4t3S ot 2022 I I + c (J 'r HE S14 16: oC ( 2 3 ,lutl 2gg () * or.sraT c HEo t PARTLY ALLOWED THE CRIMINAL P W-' Tv\x ETITION