The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 ol Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased toto quash the C.C. No. 8824 of 2024 on the file of the Court of the Hon'ble ll Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad at Nampally. l.A. NO: 1 OF 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 in C.C. No. 8824 ot 2024 on the file of the Court of the ll Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad at Nampally. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Mohd Omerullah Shareef, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri V.Jithender Rao, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No-2. The Court made the following: ORDER I I THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.9425 of 2025 ORDER: This petition is filed undet Section 528 of Bharatila Nagaik Sarakrha .\'tnhita, 202) (for short 'the BNSS) seeking quashmcflt o[ the pr<rceedirrgs in (..(..No.8824 of 2024 pending on the filc of thc lcarned II i Addirion al (- hic f Meuopolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad.

2. 'l hc briei facts o[ the case are thaq Respoadent No. 2, a Head (-onstable, lodscd a complaint against the accused, stating thar while hc, akrng rvitlr hls staff, was conducting vehicle checks at l)utliborvli Juncdr,n, ilr'dcrabad, thcy stopped three two-wheeler vchiclcs bcing drivcn bv rhc :rccused, each without a number plate. Upon qucsrioning the drivcrs rcgarcling thc absence of number plates, the accuscd gavc cr'asivc untl hastv rcspooscs. Consequendy, Respondent No. ? scized rhe vchrclcs rrrtl brorrght both the vehicles and the accused t() rhe p()licc s tafl( )n lhtreatlcr, a casc vas registered as Crime No. 316 oi 2()2{ firr offcnce s punishablc under Section 420 of t]re Indian Penal Codc, Scction 80(a) <ri rhc rclcvanr r\ct, and Section 777 of the Motor Vchiclcs .\ct. 2

3. I have heard Mr.Mohd Omerullah Shareef, learned counsel for the pctitioncr, MrJithender Rao Veeramalla, iearned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1,State.

4. l-earned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the pct-idoner is innocent and that the allegations made against him by Respondent No. 2 do not, on tleir face, constitute any offence. He further contended that, in order to attract the provisions o[ Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, it is essential that the accused must have chcated and dishoncstly induced the victim to delivet any property to anv pers()n, or to makc, alter, or desffoy the whole or any p rt of a valuable sccurin' ()r ()thcr pr()perry. ln the present case, it is neither alieged nor established that thc sirt;jcct r.chicle belongs to Respondent No. 2, nor that llespontlcnr No. ? has been cheated in any manner merely bccausc thc pctitioncr rvas driving without a number plate. Theteforc, thc ingrcdicnts nccessan tn constrtutc an offence punishable under Section "+20 I PC arc abscnt Couoscl further submitted that Section 8t)(a) of thc rclcvant ,\ct mcrely prescribes the requirement for thc cxhibidon of a rcgistration numbcr on a motor vehicle; it does not stipulatc anv punishment fltrr non-compliance. Moreoveq there is no provision in the Act cxplicidy dcclaring that driving a vehicle without a nurnbcr plate, tn itsclf, 3 constitutes an oflencc. In view of these submissions, leamed counsel prayed that the Court quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. ()n thc othcr hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the contcntions arlvanccd on behalf of the petitionet and submitted that the allcgations lcr-clled against the petitioner warrant a full-fledged trial. Accordinglr,, he praved for dismissal of the crimina] petitioo.

6. In light of the submissions advanced by both leamed counsel and upon perusal of thc nraterial availalls on record, it is evident that the solc allcg,ation egainsr thc pctitioner is that he was driving a vchiclc without a numbcr platc, ftrr which the vehicle was seized. Such conduct, by itsclf, docs n, rt tall rr"ithin the ambit of Section 420 of the Indian Penal ( - oclc -lhc

7. pcnrioner has also bcen charged undet Section 80(a) of thc relevant .\ct. I l, rwe \ ( r, this provision pertains to the procedurc ftrr \ applyinu tirr:rnd qrilnung pcrmits to vehicles, and is not attracted mcrelv becausc a vthrck rs bcrng drivcn without a numbet plate. Thercforc, rhc allegcd act docs rror sarisfi' rhe requirements of Section 80(a) otthe Act. .4 \

8. If indeed the petitioner &ove a vehicle without a number plate, the appropriate course of action for the police would have been to impose a fine in accordance with the applicable rules, or ro regrsrer a case undcr the specihc provision of law that govems such conduct. 'fhe avcrments in the complaint, even if taken at face value, do not disclose thc commission of the offences alleged against the petitioner. Accordinglv, the proceedings initiated against the petitioncr are liable to be quashed

9. liesultandv, the criminal petition is allowed and thc procccdings acainst thc pctitioner in C.C.No.8824 of 2024 pending on thc Frlc of thc lcarncd II Additional Chief Metropolitafl Magistrate , Nampally, I lvrlcrabad, are hereby quashed. \lisccllaneous pedrions, pending if any, shall stand ckrscd. SI)/- C.DEEPIKA ASSISTANI' REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER / To, 1 ,l 4 q The Il Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. The Station House Officer, Afzal Gunj police Station, Hyderabad One CC to Sri. Mohd Omerullah Shareel Advocate tOpUCl Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana. {OUTI Two CD Copies. \Q YJR /PSL HIGH COURT DATED:3010712025 ORDER CRLP.No.9425 of 2025 ! t c C() ?OJAil?M * I I z C)x I ALLOWING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION. a od(eld H,-w