The High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana, through S.H.O , Osmania University P.S., Hyderabad, Rep. by its Public Piosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. ...Respondent 2. Smt. Usmath Fyaz, Wlo. Shaik Fyaz, Aged about !9 y9?r.9' Qc9 ^!.q1ry^e1, Bharath lnstitut-e of Marine Services, Tarnaka, R/o. H.No.34-631191232, Sriramanapuram, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad. ...RespondenUDefacto Complainant Petition undbr Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Quash the proceedlngs in C.C. No. 54 of 2023 on the file of the Court of the lV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad to the extent of petitioners herein/Accused No.1 , 4 and 6. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminpl petition, the High court may be pleased to Stay all further proceedings in c.c. No. s4 of 2023 on the file of the court of the IV Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad to the extent of petitioners herein/Accused No. 1 , 4 and 6 pending d isposal of the above Criminal Petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri Gaddam Jagannatham, Advocate for the petitioner and sri v. Jithender Rao. Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER 1 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 8947 0F 2025 ORDER This Criminai Petition is filed by the petitioners - accused Nos.1,4 & 6 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.54 of 2023 on the file of the learned lV Additional Chief lrlletropolitan lVlagistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 448, 341, 384, 506 read with Section 34 of the lndian penal Code (tbr short "lPC").

2. Heard the submissions of Sri Gaddam Jagannatham, learned counsel for the petitioners and the Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the matter is squarely covered by the order dated 14.O1.ZO2S in Criminal Petition No.'l 0144 of 2025 and enclosed a copy of the said

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also submitted that the issue in the present criminal petition is covered by the earlier order in the above criminal petition. 2

5. Perused the record. -

6. The Calendar Case was originally filed in C.C.No..l9868 of 2019, wherein the accused Nos.2 and 5 were acquitted. Since the present petitioners were absconding, the case was split up and later on it was numbered as C.C.No.S4 of 2023.

7. ln a similar case vide Crl p.No.3773 of 2O2l,learned Single Judge of this Court relied upon the decisions of the Hon,ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of lnvestigation v. Akhitesh Singhl and also relying on the decisions of the Hon,ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in case of Mohammed llias v. Sfate of Karnataka2 and opined that since the trial Court acquitted the other accused, if the petitioner is subjected to second round of triar, the evidence to be produced against him cannot be different from the one that was produced by the prosecution in the earlier case. With the said observation the Single Judge has allowed the petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.2. 8' The case of the petitioners i.e., accused Nos.1, 4 and 6 in this case stands on the same footing as that of accused Nos.2 and 5 in C.C.No.19B68 of 2019. The accused Nos.1 to 3 were the ' AtR.2oos scc 168 \(, ' (200f fi(3n5 1.1 55 1 students of the Firm run by fi/arine Training lnstitute run by PWs 1 and 2. They got them admitted for basic training course for deck cadet (Engine cadet course) for three months and after completion of the same, they have sent accused Nos.1 to 3 for apprenticeship for one year, but without completing the same, they returned back PW1 and 2 have admitted a photograph, wherein accused No.2 was found present in the photograph, holding a spade on a ship. From the evidence of PW1 and2it was culled out that they lured the innocent students in the name of providing employment opportunity and saying so collected the amounts under Exs.D1 and D2 and somehow provided some sort of training and sent them to lVlalaysian ship, in the name of employment but there, the candidates/accused Nos.1 to 3 were forced to work as labourers, and being an Engineering Student, they could not do such work and thus, returned. lt was also held in C.C.No.19868 of 2019 that initially the accused approached the Police on which, the Police along with the accused persons went to the Office of PWs 1 and 2, where PWl and 2 said to have given some amounts to those L persons. By suppressing the said visit of the Police Officers and the persons as shown in Ex.D3, PW1 and 2 have lodged the complaint on 28"10.2017 as a counter blast to the complaint of the accused 1 - persons. The present complaint was lodged with inordinate delay and no explanation for the delay was offered by the complainants.

9. ln CC.No.9868 of 2019, the trial Court has held in its judgment as under:- "Ex.D4 is marked on admission of pW2, it is a poftion of his 161 Cr.P.C statement, which is denied by him. ln hrs cross examination he has denied specificaily nai ne aiO not depose as in Ex D4 "accordingty we sent those three students to the *ip.? fg, apprenticeship course on Mataysian sniip.,, fnough PW1 deposed that the students sent for apprentice'ship couie in the applications inctuding the appticaiion of accused No.2 under Ex P7. the post is shown as Engine cadet and nowhere in those applications, it was mentiineA as afpienticeship course and it is mentioned for the position as Engine Cadet. Hence, it is ctear that in the name o'f providing jib,"iWs t and 2 lured the students, collected the amounti'from them and later deposed before this Courl that they we,re senl to apprenticeship course, which is nowhere me'ntioned on those dgclments and hence, the evidence of pWs 1 and 2 with that of Ex.P2 to Pl3 is not corroborating and is quite coitradictory to each other." '1 0. Thus, the Court disbelieved the evidence of pW.l and 2 coupled with Ex.P1 and Ex.p1g. The Ex.p1 is the complaint and Ex.P18 is the pen drive having CC footage of second incident along with 65-8 Certificate. By disbelieving their version, the case ended in acquittal of accused Nos.2 and 5 in the said case.

11. The accused No.1 is the student; accused No.4 is the father of accused No.'l and accused No.6 is the father of accused No.3. 5 Thus, when the Court has concluded in such a way that it is a counter blast case, the evidence of pW1 and 2 and the complaint itself was disberieved in the said case, no new facts can be cuiled out even if the present matter is subjected to trial.

12. The accused No.1 is the student, accused No.4 is the father of accused No.1 and accused No.6 is the father of accused No.3. Thus, when the Court has concluded in such a way that it is a counter blast case and also the evidence of pW1 and 2 and the complaint itself was disberieved in the said case, no new facts can be culled out even if the present matter is subject to trial. '13. Accordingiy, the Criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1, 4 and 6 herein in C.C.No.54 of 2023 (tMain C.C.No.19868 of 2019) on the fite of tV Additional Chief [Vletropolitan Magistrate, .Hyderabad are hereby quashed. lVliscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/- M.OSMAN ALI BAIG SIS ANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To,

1. The lV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad' 2. fheStation House Officer, Osmania University Police Station' Hvderabad

3. One CC to Sri. Gaddam Jagannatham, Advocate tOpUCl t therPublrc Prosecutor, High court ro, ft,u st"t" of retangana, lyat"Prtot"l" 5. Two CD Copies. t YJR/PSL t^ HIGH COURT DATED:2 510912025 I t ORDER CRLP.No.8947 ot 2025 I I ,.,. .::. :.1 : /) '-' :) ,J ,.,:. 13 t]IT ro5 ,} ,:,ii ?: it ',! ::/ CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED. @ 3) to l