The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C 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 including the appearance of the petitioner in C.C.No.1644 of 2023 on the file of the Court of the Xlll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District, pending disposal of the above Criminal petition and pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T.Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, Senior Advocate representing Sri T.S.Anirudh Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad on behalf of the Respondent No.1. The Court made the following: ORDER: I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.7881 OF 2024 DATED: 5*'DECEMBER.2025 Between: Kadiri Manoj Kumar Reddy Petitioner AND The State of Telangana represented by Public Prosecutor and one another Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.3 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.1644 of 2023 on the file of the learned Xlll Additional tVletropolitan lVlagistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar, Rangareddy District, registered for the offences under Sections 201, 336, 286 , 427 of the lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC'), Section 9(BX1) of the Explosive Act (for short 'the Act') 2

02. Heard Sri T. pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned senior counsel representing Sri r.s. Anirudh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and sri M.Ranrachandra Reddy, learned Additional pubric prosecutor .for the state- respondent No.1. Despite service of notice by way of paper publication, none appeared on behalf of the respondent No.2. Perused the record.

03. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2 has been residing along with his family at H'No'4-30Gr2, 60 yards corony, Kokapet Viilage, Gandipet Mandal, Rangareddy District. Adjacent to the house of the respondent No.2, construction activity was undertaken by IVI/s Fortune Buirders, owned by the accused Nos.1 and 2. The excavation work was entrusted to the petitioner_accused No'3, who carried out the said work under the instructions of the accused Nos.1 and 2. rt is areged that the petitioner_ accused No.3 used explosive material on 02.02.2023 between 12:OO and 15:00 hours for blasting operations without obtaining any varid permission from the Government. As a consequence of the said brasting, the house of the 3 respondent No.2 suffered damage, including scattering of I I material and the formation of cracks on the interior walls. lt is further alleged that the petitioner-accused No.3, in collusion with the accused Nos.1 and 2, disposed of the blasting material from the site and thereby caused disappearance of evidence. Thereby, the accused persons have comnritted the alleged offences. 04Learnedcounselforthepetitioner-accusedNo.3 submitted that he is nothing to do with the alleged offences' The incident was allegedty occurred on 02'02'2023 but the complaint was lodged on 17 .02.2023 and there is delay of 17 daysinfilingthecomplaint.Thepetitioner-accusedNo.3had never carried out any blasting work and the said contract work was assigned to one Ramulu' At the relevant point of time, the petitioner-accused was not present the scene of offence. The petitioner-accused No'3 was implicated basing ontheconfessionalstatementoftheco.accusedNo.2,which is inadmissible. The responsibility to obtain any license with regardtoexplosivesubstancesisontheaccusedNos.land I I 4

2. The contents of the charge sheet do not disclose the required ingredients to attract the aileged offences. 04(b). with the above submissions, whire praying to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.3, the learned counser for the petitioner reried upon a decision of the Honourabre Supreme court in Karan Tarwar v. The sfafe of Tamit Nadut wherein at paragrap' Nos.10 and 12 "79. As is evident from the sard Secfib n, the alteged offence is consumption of narcotic drug or psychotropic substance other than those speciied in or under clause (a) of Secfron 27, ND1S Act, and therefore, the question is whether any material is available to charge the appettant thereunder. The contention of the appeilant is that he has been arraigned as accused No.13 based on the confession statement of co-accused viz., accused No.1. Certainly, in the absence of any other material on record to connect the appeilant with the cime, the confession statement of the co_accused by itself cannot be the reason for his implication in the crime. This view has been fortified by the taw laid down in suresh Budharmar Katani v. sfafe of Maharashtra3, wherein it was stated that a co-accused,s confession containing incriminating matter against a person would not by itself suffice to fram'e charge against him' The materiars on record wourd revear that the investigating agency had not subjected him to medical 'zoz+ twSC totz 5 examination and instead, going by complaint Witness No.23, he smelt the accused. The /ess sald the better and we do not think it necessary to comment upon adoption of such a course. We need only to say that even if he tendered such evidence, it would not help the prosecution in anyway. There is abso/ufely no case that any recovery of contraband was recovered from the appetlant. As regards the confession statement of the appellant in view of Section 25 of the lndian Evidence Act, 1872 there can be no doubt with respect to the fact that it is inadmissible in evidence. ln this context it is worthy to refer to the decision of fhls Court in Ram Stngh v. Central Bureau of Narcotics4. ln the sard decision, this Court held that Secflon 25 of the lndian Evidence Act would make confessional statement of accused before police inadmissible in evidence and it could not be brought on record by prosecution to obtain conviction. Shortly stated, except the confessional statement of co- accused No.1 there is absolutely no material available on record against the appellant.

12. As noted hereinbefore, the sole material available against the appellant is the confession sfafement of the co-accused viz., accused No.1, which undoubtedly cannot translate into admissible evidence at the sfage of trial and against the appellant. When that be the position, how can it be said that a prima facie case is made out to make the appetlant to stand the trial. There can be no doubt with respect to the position that standing the trial is an ordeal and, therefore, in a case where there is no mateial at all which could be translated into evidence at the trial stage it would be a miscariage of iustice to make the person concerned to stand the tial."

05. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent No.1 I i . I I b contended that there are triable issues and factual aspects to beexaminedbythelearnedtrialCourtanditisnotafitcase to quash the proceedings against the petitioner at this junctureandthematterhastobeinvestigatedanddecided after conducting trial by the learned trial court and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition'

06.Havingregardtothesubmissionsmadeoneither sideanduponperusaloftherecord,itisevidentthatthe petitioner-accused No'3 was arrayed as an accused in the basis of the confessional present case solelY on the It is further apparent from statement of the accused No'2' the material on record that the blasting contract work was entrusted to one Ramulu for the period from 29-01.2A23 b 28.02.2A23 by the accused Nos. 1 and 2. As seen from the record, although the incident is alleged to have occurred on 02.02.2023, the complaint came to be lodged only on

17.02.2023, with an inordinate and unexplained delay of more than two weeks. 7 interested No.2-Police

07. ln order to substantiate the allegations, prosecution examined as many as twerve witnesses Among them, two witnesses are the respondent constable and his wife, who are admittedlv witnesses' The wife of the respondent No.2 was shown as an 'eyewitness' and craimed that she had immediatery rushed to the scene of offence and photographed the same. However, her statement does not discrose the presence of the petitioner-accused No.3 at the scene of offence, which is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Four witnesses are circumstantiar, out of whom two are porice constabres, who appear to be hearsay witnesses; four are panch witnesses to the scene of offence as weil as to the confessionar statement of the accused No.2; and the remaining two are porice officials who registered the FrR, conducted the investigation, and filed the charge sheet. Significanfly, there is not a singre piece of evidence to show that the petitioner-accused No.3 conducted the alleged blasting activity or to estabrish any nexus between the accused Nos.1 and 2 and the petitioner- accusedNo'3inthecommissionoftheallegedoffences.A 8 crucial aspect to be 'noted is that the Police failed to examtne thesaidRamulu,whowasthecontractordur:ingtherelevant period, or record his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure' The major allegations' if any' are primarily directed against the accused Nos'1 and 2 for contravention of the rules made under the Act and under otherallegedpenalprovisions.Whentheinvolvementofthe petitioner-accused No.3 is not established, the question of attracting the alleged offences against him does not arise' 0S.ltiswellsettledlawthataconfessionmadetoa police officer is inadmissible in evidence. Section 25 of the lndian Evidence Act categorically provides that no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. Even where the confession of a co- accused is brought on record, such confession, by itself, cannot be treated as sufficient material to frame charges against another, accused in the absence of independent corroborative evidence connecting the latter to the alleged offence. When the only incriminating material against an accused is the confession of a co-accused, and therg exists \, I I I I I I I I ! 1 i E I j :. no other independent into admissih,"-^:.:ltt ffiaterial capable evidence rt tn"r ffi:rHrffi: r comrniss,o;t'o'u I of the offence, it would be un to subiect such person to tri the criminal proceedings would arnount to an abuse of process .of liable to be quashed. accordingly, just and irnproper al. Therefore, the contjnuation against the petitioner_accused No.3 law and is 0g' Accordingry, the criminar proceedings this criminar petition is arowed and against the petitioner_accused No 3 Rajendranagar' in c'c'No' 1644 0f 2o,o on the fire of the rearned x,r Additional Metroporitan fuagistrate, cyberabad at Rangareddy District, are hereby quashed. As a sequel, pending miscella neous applications, if any, shall :!glg r&sed- //TRUE COPY// sD/- K.BHAVANI SWAMY STANT R EGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 1' The XlllAdditionar Metroporitan Magistrate, cyberabad at Rajenmdranagar, Rangareddy District

2. The Statron HOUSe offtcer, Narsinghi Police Station' Hyderabad Rangareddv Reddy' Advocate IOPUC] High Court for the State of Telangana' Prosecutor' District.

3. One CC tb Sri' T'S'Anirudh ; l,lA;:r'.t $t Irlo"' 5. lwo CD Copies' psKIPSLYY r' "r' HIGH COURT DATED :OSt1ZIilA2S ORDER CRLP.No.788 1 of 2024 lflE s () 1 1 0E[ itii z * ., l' A^ i$3in41-q1i:,::"' . :' '-"-1.',1,'"gi;;.1i. - .' ' I I I ALLoWINGTHEGRIMINALPETITIoN ad\ "'&#