The High Court · 2025

AND '1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad.

2. F areeda Begum, Wo. Late Rouf Bin Ali, Aged 48 years, Occ- Housewife, Rl/o. H.No.19-2-26lA/104, Jahanuma, Hyderabad. ...Respondents 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 quash the charge sheet, dated 12.07.2019, in C.C.No.10508 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. ] l.A. NO: 1OF 2020 Petition underr Sectton 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the l-ligh court may be pleased To stalr of all further proceedings in C.C.No.10508 rrf 2019, dated 12.O7.2019. on the file of the court of the XVI Additional chief ti/letropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, including the arrest of the petitioner A1 , 42, A4&A5 This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Crirninal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N Mukund Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri M.Vivekanada Reddy, Asst. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRJ WSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.6943 of 2O2O ORDER: The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., by the petitioners/accused Nos.l, 2, 4, and 5 to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1O508 of 2019, pending on the hle of XVI Additiona,l Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad.

2. The'complaint was filed by respondent No.2/de facto complainant on 01.06.2019, alleging that petitioner No.1 ald his associates trespassed into her house at around 7.30 P.M., and damaged movable property. Further, the two persons, namely, Ashviq and Nadeem, were present when petitioner No. I and his associates trespassed into the house of respondent No.2

3. On the basis of the complaint, which was filed on

01.06.2019 at around 7.3O P.M., a case was registered in Crime No.82 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 448, +27, 5O4, and 506 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. 2 ,i

4. The I.nvestigating Officer conducted scene ol' offence panchnama and after completion of investigation, charge- sheet was hled. In the charge-sheet, the complainant 1S shown as L'W. 1, LW.2 is circumstantial witness and son of de facto cornp).ainant, LWs.3 ald 4 are the panch w.itnesses, and LW.5 is the Investigating Officer.

5. Learn,:d Senior Counsel appearing on beha.lf of the petitioners ',vould submit that petitioner No.1 lodged a complaint ,rzith Shaha-libanda Police Station, alle6;ing that Mohammed Bin Rouf, who is the sorr of tle facto complainant, assaulted him along with two others. Police have registered a case in Crime No.S1 of 2019, everr prior to the complaint being made by respondent No.2 herein. The Police hled charge-sheet in the said case. As a counter blast to the said ,:omplaint, the present complaint was filerd by the mother of lVlohammed Bin Rouf/de facto complainan t, who is accused No.1 in Crime No.81 of 2019,Iiled by the gretitioner No. t herein.

6. Only on the ground that the workers viz., Ashvaq and Nadeem, w-hose names were specifically mentione,:l in the J complaint filed by the de facto complainant, were not shown as witnesses in the charge-sheet, the proceedings -cannot be quashed.

7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anand. Kumar Mohatta !, State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Homel, and the relevant portion reads as under: - '3O. It is necessary here to remember the utords of this Court in State of Karnataka u. L.Munisutamg uhich reads as follotus: . "7. -...1n the exercise of thi.s tuholesome pou)er, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if .it corles to the conclusion that allouing the proceeding to continue uLould be an abuse of the process of the Court or thdt the ends of jtstice require that tLrc proceeding ought to be quoshed. Tte sauing of the High Court's inherent powers, both in ciuil and ciminol matters, is designed to achieue a salutory public purpose uhich is that a court proceeding ought not to be pennitted to degenerate into a uteapon of harassment or prosecutlon- In a criminal case, the ueiled object behjnd a lame prosecution, the uery nature of the mateial on uhich the structure of tLrc prosecution rests and- the like u-tould justifg the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice."

8. There is no dispute regarding the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, the matter has to be I lzore; t t scc zoo \ \ 4 decided onl'7 on the basis of the facts in a particular case. In the present case, the allegation is that the petitioners have trespassed into the house of respondent No.2 at 7.:30 P.M., and damaged the vehicle, furniture etc. Whether res;pondent No.2l de facto complainant is speaking the truth or otherwise, can only be ascertained in the trial. 9 . The cirse before the Court below shall be disposed off within a period of four months from today, since there are only two mzLterial witnesses

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dispose<l off. No costs. Misce'llaneous Petitions pending, if anv, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. T. JAYAS ASSISTANT REGIS E R SECTON N: ICER To,

2. .)

5. The XVI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally. The Station l-louse Officer,, Shahallbanda Police Station, Hyderabad City. One CC to Sri. N Mukund Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] Two CD Copies Y]R w ,. l :l I ,i i I I i l g,TATE cl $E ( :) o ,d \t:., $\ r:.tt r$6 O 'i- P A * HIGH COURT DATED: 1010212025 ORDER GRLP.No.6943 of 2020 I I I ( i l l I I DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION. €*d4 &,