The High Court · 2025

Petition under section 4g2 0f cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the [vemorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be pleased to stay alt further proceedings including appearance of the Petitioners/ Accuserd \o 1 to 5 herein in c.c. No. 11214 0f 2020 0n the fire of the Vll Additional C hir>{ l\,4etropotitan l\riagistrate: At Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above Criminal petition. This Petiticn c:,rning on for hearing, upon peruslng the l\/emorandum of Grounds of Crimin,al petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri r\,d lqbar AIi Javirj, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. E.GANESH, the Assistant pubric pros':cutor (TG) on beharf of the Respondent No.1 and [Vrr. VELAGAPUDI SRlNlV,,AS, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER -I .,/ /l ,,/ THE HONOURABLE SR! JUSTICE E.V.VEiiucopAL CRTMINAL PETITIoN No.6945 of 2O2O ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/ accused Nos. 1 to 5, to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.11214 of 2O2O on the file of VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian penal Code, 1g6O (for short 'the IPC).

2. Heard Sri. Mohammed Iqbal Ali Javid, learned Counsel for the Petitioners as well as Sri. E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosectrtor lor respondent No. 1-State and Sri. E.Srinivas Velagapudi, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 15.06.2020 and O5.O7 .2O2O, the accused persons came to the house of the de-facto complainant and besides creating nuisalce in his house, they threatened the de-facto complainart and his family members with dire conseqlrences. Hence, a case was registered uide Crime T(o-2OS of 2O2O before the Kanchanbagh police and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed uid.e C.C. 2 j. EryJ Ctl.P- No.6945 of 2o2o :.' No. 77211 ot 2O2O before the learned VII Additiona_l Chief Metropolitar:L lVlagistrate at Hyderabad.

4. Learnr:cl counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner No. L ar-rd respondent No.2 are bressed with one ma_re child on 26.12,.2018 out of their wedlock on 21.05.2012. He further submitted that petitioner No. 1 and respondent No.2 are residing separately due to matrimonial disputes. He also submitted that the petitioners went to the house of respondent No.2 for settlinil the said matrimonial disputes but they have not created any ha.',,oc or any misdeed. Hence, he prayed the Court to allow the rltriminal petition by quashing the proceedings against the petlt,roners. 5 On th-e other harrd, learned Assistant public prosecutor vehemently opposed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners as p.lice have investigated the case and filed charge sheet against the accused. He further contended that it is not a fit case to qu:rstr the proceedings against the petitioners at this juncture and 1.h:.matter is to be decided after conducting trial by the trial Court. 5 EW,J Crl P-No 6945 of 2o2o Learned counsel for respondent No'2 submitted that the 6. petitioners besid'es entering into the house of respondent No'2' also threatened respondent No.2 and his family members with dire consequences' Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition t. Having regard to the contentions advanced on either 7. side, it appeaJs that the petitioners besides creating nuisance at the house of respondent No ' 2 ' also threatened his family memberswithdireconsequences'Hence,thisCourtisofthe considered view that whether there is any criminal intimidation by the petitioner to attract th'-' alleged offence or not' can be decided by the trial Court' Ljnder these circumstances' this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings against the petitioners at this st2ge' However' the appearance/attendance of the petitioners/ accused Nos'1 to 5 before the learned VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad' is dispensed with, unless the same is required by tl"e trial Court for a specific purpose, or at the time of examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P'C', and on the date of pronouncement of Judgment. Further, the petitioners/ accused Nos' 1 to 5 are at liberty to frie discharge petition and on such petition O"t",*-11: ' ; t laN ,1 the trial Cor_rt shall drspo,se li the same on merlts u,ithin three (03) months uninfluenced by any of the obsen,ations made by this Order 8 Acco rclingly, the Criminal petition is disposed of. Misceilaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand clo serl Sd/. P.CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA E U TY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII I I I \i \l sEt TION OFFICER

1. The Vll Aciditio.al Chief t\,4etropolitan l\rlagistrate. At Hyderabad 2 The station House officer, Kanchanbagh Foti"u st"tion, Hyderabad city. 3. Two CCs to the public prosecutor, Higico; iorif," Strt" of Telangana, at 1 9n" CC to Sri i\4d tqbat Ati Javid, Advocate tOpUCl 5. one CC to Mr vELAGApUDt sRtNtvAS, id;";i" topucl 6. Two CD Copies Hyderabad. [OLIT] 1 I To, RC HIGH COURT EW, J DATED: 29107,t2025 10 [ii ,4,:ri 1 ORDER CRLP.No.6945 ot 2020 Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is Disposed of.