The High Court · 2025

Petition under section 528 of B.N.S.S. praying that in the circumstances stated in the trrlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition' the Hiqh Court may be pleased to Quash the proceedings in FIR No 1 145 of 2025 on the file of Narsingi Police Station, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District Telangana' l.A. NO:1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of B,N.S.S. praying that in the CircumStances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition' the High Court may be pleased to Stay all the proceedings of in FIR No' 1145 of 2025 on the file of Narsingi Police Station' Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District' Telangana including arrest of the Petitioners herein/Accused No 1 and 2' This Petition coming on for hearing, upon peruslnc the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V V Ramana Rao, Advocate for the petitioner anc Sri V.Jithender Rao, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Resporrr ent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMI NAL PETITI ON No.7967 0F 2025 ORDER: This Criminal petition is filed by the petitioners _ accused seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No..l 145 of 2O2S on the file of P.S. Narsingi, Cyberabad, registered for the offences under Sections 329(3), 335, 61(2) read with 3(5) of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2A23 (for short,,BNS, 2023").

2. Heard the submissions of Sri V.V. Ramana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional public prosecutor for respondent No.1 _ State and Sri D. Sudarshan, learned counsel for respondent No.2_de_facto complainant

3. The learned petitioners counsel has submitted that the petitioners herein are the purchasers of the property and therefore, they cannot be aileged to have trespassed into their own rands. He further submitted that respondent No 2 is not at ail concerned with the property and that the r\Iagistrate has not forowed the procedure laid (own in Section 175(3) of the BNSS and that due to the said non compriance, the proceedings against the petitioners have to be quashed. He further submitted that the Magistrate was supposed to --\. ;Eq 'I \1 ETD.J Crlp.No.7961 2025 issue notice and hear the Station House Officer as t' r whether the prima-facie case exists against the petitioner or not But the said procedure is not followed by the tt/lagistrate' He fu'rer submitted that the ingredients does not constitute any offenc -' against the petitioners and that the Petitioner No'1 is rn pos s ,'ssion of the property. The petitioners herein have lodged a clnplaint earlier against the de-facto complainant herein in which r; rarge sheet is also filed, just as a counter blast to their case' the pr< sent complaint ro truth in the is filed by the de-facto complaint' allegations, he PraYed to quash Since, there is against the eding s p petitioners. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor hat submitted that 4. the pendency of the civil proceedings cannot be a g round to quash the criminal proceedings' He further submitted that Ll e allegations of conspiracy and fabrication of documents are mact out during the course of investigation and that there is a strong r ase against the petitioners. He further submitted that the procedrt . under Section 175(3) of the BNS is not mandatory to be followed : / the Magistrate' He therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition'

5. Perused the record 3 ETD,J Crlp.No.7967 2025

6. The contention of the petitioners counsel is that the mandatory procedure of issuing notice to the Station House Officer is not followed in this case and that the complaint is bad in the eye of I law. Section 175(3) of BNSS is extracted hereunder for the sake of reference:- "Secfion 175(3) in Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023:- (3)Any Magistrate empovtered under section 210 may, after consideing the application supported by an affidavit made under sub-section (4) of sectian 173, and after making such inquiry as he thinks necessary and submission made in this regard by the police officer, order such an investigation as above-mentioned." 7 . A bare perusal of the said section !'eveals that it is not mandatory procedure to be followed by the Magistrate. Therefore, the non compliance of Section 1 75(3) does not vitiate the proceedings and it does not strike at the root of the case. The allegations do point out prima-facie case against the petitioners under Sect!ons329(3), 335, 61(2) read with 3(5) of the BNS. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the process of investigation, which is stil! in progress. Hence, the petition lacks merits.

8. ln the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed I t .- 4 ETD.J CrLp.No.7967 2025 Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall ;tand closed SI) . P.PONNA KRISHNA ASiI ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 4 6 o The Xlll Judicial First Class Magistrate, Cyberabad at Il rjendrangar. 5[ir:"[-r,,"" House Officer, Narsingi potice Station, Cyb :rabad, Ranga Reddy Kondu_Ram Prasad Rao, S/o Kondu Rajeshwar Rao \ged about 52 vears. Occ: Business. Rt/o. HNof-+oioZ 5'airar-r,j;# "Hi;d;'hi;td"i;1. Gandipet (tr/), Ranga Reddy Districr, HvO".6jA ddds r ' One CC to Sri. V V Ramana Rao, Advocate. [OpUC] Two CCs to Public prosecutor, High Court for the State r f Telangana. [OUT] Two CD Copies YJR t----- l HIGH COURT DATED:1810912025 . I jl;l,. :9/) t 17 ,l|tt ?0fr I = * <eg- --' ORDER CRLP.No.7967 of 2025 DISMISSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITI )N. )