High Court of Telangana · 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 SC No.193 ot 2018 on the file of the Court of the Special Sessions Judge For Trial SC/ST (POA) Act, Cases cum Additional Sessions Judge Court, Nalgonda including appearance of the petitioner, pending disposal of the quash petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V BRAHMAIAH CHOWDARY, Advocate for the Petitioner Sri E.Ganesh, the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Reepondent No.1 and Ms.V.Mythili, appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.8531 OF 2o23 ORDER: The present Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/ accused in S.C.No.193 of201B on the file of the learned Special Sessions Judge for Trial of SC/ST (POA) Act Cases-cum-Additional Sessions Judge Court, Nalgonda (for short, "the trial Court,,) for the offences punishable under Sections 417 and 42O of I.p.C. and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act.

2. Heard Mr.Laxmaiah, Iearned counsel representing Mr.V.Brahmaiah Chowdary, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. E. Ganesh, learned Assistant public prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State and Ms.V.Mythi1i, learned Legal Aid counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 08.06.201g respondent No.2 filed a complaint against the petitioner stating that when she was studying B.pharmacy in Gate Engineering Co1lege, the petitioner, proposed her stating that he wanted to marry her; that initially she denied him but later accepted his proposal. It is"stglted that the elder brother of petitioner noticed ',tS:,.i...-..i:. 2 the same and decided to perform their marriage. But her elder brother tortured her due to which, the petitioner upon knowing the same, asked her to come to Hyderabad; that respondent No.2, believing the words of petitioner, left her family members, came to Hyderabad and made a phone call to the peLitioner, who was staying at Kodad; that the petitioner replied that he had interview and requested her to stay at Hostel. Respondent No.2 alleged that the petitioner had utilized her in all aspects except physical contacts. As the petitioner did not turn up, she made a complaint to the Station House Officer concerned

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and respondent No.2 married each other; that respondent No.2 fi1ed complaint against petitioner vide Crime No.54 of 2OlB for the offences punishable under Sections 417 and 42O of I.P.C; that respondent No.2 filed another complaint against the petitioner vide F.l.R.No.290 of 2O 19 for the offence under Section 354(D) of I.P.C.; that respondent No.2, by suppressing the earlier complaints filed the present complaint against petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 4 17 and42O of LP.C. and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act J

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that respondent No.2 is a complaint monger and filed the present complaint with false and baseless ailegations, which amounts to double jeopardy. Therefore, he seeks to allow the Criminal Petition

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor ald learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that the matter requires fu1l- fledged trial ald sought to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 7 . Having regard to the submissions made by both the learned counsel, relying on the decision passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haji Iqbal alias Bala through S.P.O.A. Vs. State of U.P. and Othersl and upon taking into consideration the overall circumstances that lead to the initiation/ registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation, this Court is of the view that multiple F.I.R.s registered over a period of time u,ould evince wreaking out vengeance out of private or personal grudge betrveen the parties. ,Moreover, the uncontroverted allegations made in tne h'.f.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commlsslon of any offence and make out a case against the ' 2023 SCC OnLine SC 946 i I I I II * I I I {' 4 -'{:f:: -.. a\ petitioner. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings in so far as petitioner is concerned in s.c.No.193 of 2018 on the hle of the rearned special Sessions Judge for Triar of SC/ST (POA) Act Cases-cum-Additional Scssions Judge Court, Nalgonda.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUry REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ,l To, SECTION OFFICER 'l . The Court of the Special Sessions Judge For Trial SC/ST (POA) Act, Cases cum Additional Sessions Judge Court, Nalgonda

2. The Station House Officer, Police Station, Chilkur, Suryapet Dist 3. Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court at Hyderabad 4. One CC to SRI V BRAHMAIAH CHOWDARY Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies (ouT) Tpk/PSL YY I I l HIGH COURT DATED:0910412025 J' .tf) 6e Slarr€ 0 2 ti\l 2U5 i ,u' ORDER CRLP.No.8531 of ZO23 t o I DEs 'ATC CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED % .DYkA Yk_ fld-as