The learned counsel for the v. State of lJttar Pradeshl wherein it was reld that in the said case, the

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Cou( may be pleased to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 39 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class lvlagistrate (For Proh and Excise Offences) at Nalgonda, against the petitioner. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the IVemorandum 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. 39 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate (For Proh and Excise Offences) at Nalgonda, pending disposal of the criminal petition. l.A. NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that lr tha circurnstances stated in the N4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitio r, the High Courl nray, be pleased to extelC the rnterim orders in Crlp 8975 of 2025 dl: 18.07 2025 tiil disposal of the nrain Criminal Petition. This Petrt on conrng on for hearing, upon perusinr; the I\4emorandun't o' Grounds of Crrnrirritl Petition and upon hearing the argu'n,lnts cf Sr D. Jaipar Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and Si Jithender Rao',/oeramalla, Additional Publrc Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and of none appeared for the Respondent No 2 The Court made the following: ORDER . .r i*;{|. _s: Fad1Er 'rr-f -,, 1 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.8975 OF 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner - accused seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.39 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class ltlagistrate (for Prohibition & Excise Offences), Nalgonda, registered for the offences under Sections 304-4, 337, 338 of the lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC') and Section 181 and 196 of the M.V Act

2. Heard the submissions of Sri D. Jaipal Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State 3 The learned petitioner counsel has submitted that the petitioner was not driving the car at the time of alleged accident and that it was driven by one Prashanth who too died in the accident. He further submitted that just to demand money, from the petitioner herein, the de-facto complainant has come up with a false story that he was driving the car at the time of accident. He further submitted that initially 16'1 Cr.P.C statements were recorded by the Police. Thq witnesses have stated that it was driven by one Prashanth who l I I I t i I i I t ! I i I i i I i i : l I 1 a 2 died in the accirjent, but subsequently his name a ppeared in the charge sheet anrJ they have also filed 161 Cr.P.C stalements which were recorded for the second time. wherein the chi dren of the de- facto complainant have stated that the petitioner he rt:in has driven the car. Thus, the changed versron of statements would prove that the case of prosecution is false. He therefore, praye:c to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 4 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has s;ubmitted that the investigatron revealed that, though the petitioner rruas drivrng at the time of ar:ciclent, he requested the inmates of the car, not to disclose his name and on his request, the witness,:r; have stated that the deceased has driven the vehicle, but subr;equenfly, they stated that the petitioner has driven the vehicle. Therefore, the matter should be subjected to trial. Hence, prayed trt dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relie,d upon Vineet Kumar Vs. State of lJttar Pradeshl , wherein it was reld that in the said case, the complainVprosecutrix had herself a tproached the 'izonl t: scc :oo ,, 3 High Court with a prayer that first information lodged by her be quashed. Thus, in the circumstances, it was held that the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecutrix. Even in the charge sheet, the lnvestigating Officer, has acknowledged that he could not find any proof to substantiate the charges and the charge sheet had been filed only on the basis of the statement of complainant under Section .164 Cr.p.C. ln those circumstances, it was held that the High Court could have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 and therefore, quashed the criminal proceedings. But, in the present case, the allegations do point out the prima-facte case against the petitioner herein. Hence, the said decision is not applicable to this case.

7. He also relied upon in Prashant Bharti Vs. State of NCT of Delhi2, wherern certain guidelines were laid down to exercise the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 23) (i) Step one, whether the material retied upon by the accuse /s sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the material is sterling and impeccable quality? (ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertlons contained in the charges leveled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to rqect and overrule the factual asserfions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as ' e1n zo t: scc 2753 I woLtltl pcrsuade a reasonable person to ( 1/rvrlss condemn the factual basis of the accusaflons a-. lalse (iii) Siep three. whether the material relied toon accused, has nat been refuted by prosecutictr/conplainanl, and/or the materiat is s,tih canno: l,e justrfrably refuteo l.,y p rose cu tion/com p lain a nt? (iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial woutd result in an abuse of process of the Court, an,7 woLtld not serue ihe ends of justice? by the that it lf the answer to all the sleps ls in the affirmativ.e, judicial conscience of the High Court shoutd persuacle it ti quash such cnminal proceedings, in exercise of power vesteitcl in it under Section 482 of the Cr.p.C. Such exercis., of power, besides doing justice to le accused, would sa rc: precious court time, which woutd othen^tise be wastecl rn hotding such tt trial (as we as, proceedings arising therefroi) specially tvhen, it is clear thal the saie woutd"not conctucle in the con iction of the accused ,, B The recrtals of the charge sheet and the st€ltements show that the car berongs to the brother of the petitioner herein and that he along with his friends were travelling in the said car. The allegations that the petitioner herern has driven fl^ e car in a rash and negligent manner, resurting in the accident, wherein three persons have died and two persons got injured. lhe 161 Cr.p.C statements of LWs 4 and 5 are found in the file. l\ perusal of the said statements reveal that in the first instance, ftrey have stated that one Prashanth has driven the car and that he died in the accident, but subsequenfly, on their own volition tf-ey approached / ,,ia.d6:.4*rs=€.f 4r==/ / the Police and stated that it is the petitioner who has driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, causing the accident. The veracity of these witnesses needs to be tested during the course of tria l.

9. ln the result, the Criminal petition is disposed of dispensing with the attendance of the petitioner before the triar court. unress their presence is specificaily required by the triar court during the course of trial, provided that they shall be represented by their counsel on every date of hearing. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. To, Sd/. G. JYOTHI TANT REGISTRAR SI //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER

1. The Judicial Ftrst Class lr,4agistate (For proh & Excise Offences) at Nalgonda 2. The Station House Officer, Kattangur Police Station, Nalgonda Distict 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to Sri D. Jaipal Reddy, Advocate [OpUC] 5. Two CD Copies VIYDL /M. HIGH COURT DATED: 261A912025 J I o(l. \l J '15 rjlU 2rl5 ,/ .i' c s ORDER CRLP.No.8975 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE CR!MINAL PETIT!ON 4 \)