Criminal Petition No. 10007 of 2025 · The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praving that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash C.C.No.673 ot 2025, Pending on the filc of thc Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class at Siricilla, Rajanna Siricilla District for the offence Punishable Under the Head of 287, 292, 115 (2), 792,357 R/w 190 of BNS act of 2023, arising from the complaint of respondent No.2, registcred \^,ith P.S Cambhiraopet by excrcising its inherent Powers Under section 528 of BNSS. I.A. NO:2OF2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praving that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all the Proceedings including the Presence of Petitioner/ accused No.1 in C.C.No.673 of 2025 pending on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class. at Siricilla, Rajanna Siricilla District for thc offcnce Punishable Under the Head of 28,l',292, 11'5 (2), 192,351. R/w 190 of BNS act of 2023, arising from the complaint of respondent No.2, registered with P.S Gambhiraopet bv exercising its inherent Powers Under section 528 of 528 of BNSS. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M.Rathan Singh, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1. The Court made thc following: ORDER I THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIM INAL PETITION No.10007 OF 2025 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner - accused seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.673 of 2025 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class' Siricilla, Rajanna, registered for the offences under 281 ,2')',a, 115(2)' 192' 351 (2) read with 1 90 of the The Bharatiya Nyaya S anhita , 2023 (tor short "BNS, 2023) and Section 3 of The Prevention of Damage to Public Property (for short'PDPP Act').

2. Heard the submissions of Sri Rathan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veera'nalla, learned Additional Pubilc Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State.

3. The learned petitioner counsel has submittel that there was an altercation between both the groups and the allegations leveled against the petitioners is false. He further submitted that there is no damage to public property at all and therefore, llection 3 of the PDPP Act does not get attracted, and that they are all incorrect asse(ions made by the de-facto complainan' and that the petitioners never beat anyone and never committed any offence as alleged$y-the de-facto complainant. He further sttbmitted that the 2 de-facto complaint has beat these petitioners and therefore, they have lodged a complaint based on which FlR.No.20 of 2025 was registered. As a counter blast the present complaint is filed with an afterthought and that it is registered under FlR.No.21 ot 2025. He thus, submitted that since it is a counter blast case filed against them, there is no lofa of truth in the allegations. Therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that it is a case and counter case, one cannot be quashed and the other cannot be kept pending as per the dicta laid down by the Apex Court in Punit Beriwala v. State of NCT of Delhil . He further submitted that the gate of Grampanchayat Office was damaged by the petitioner which is a public property and thus, Section 3 of the PDPP Act gets attracted. He therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record

6. The allegations in the complaint point out that there was a l collusion between two vehicles after which an altercation took place between two groups, during the course of which they damaged the gate of the Gramapanchayat Office and thus, both the groups have I 2025 SCC Onlinc SC 983 l I , I 3 filed complaints against each other giving rise to a case and a counter case

7. ln Punit Beriwala's decision (supra), it wa:; held that if a case and counter case are pending, one cannot be cluashed while the other is kept pending ln the light of the above cited decision, and in view of the

8. above held discussion, the proceedings cannol be quashed, however, C.C No.673 of 2025 is pending before the t'ial Court. lt is deemed appropriate to dispense with the atterrdance of the petitioner before the trial Court. L ln the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of dispensing with the attendance of the petitioner before the trial Court, unless his presence is specifically required by the trial Court during the course of trial, provided that he shall be represented by his counsel on every date of hearing. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any shall stand closed. L SD/. L VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SEC'| ION OFIJICEI( //TRUECOPY// To, 1 The Aclclitional ludicial Magistrate of First class at Siricill.r, Rajarrna Siricilla District

2. 3. 4. 5. ICK/ The Station House Officer, Gambhiraopet Police Station, Rajanna Sircilla. One CC to Sri M.Rathan Singlu Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. [OL[] Two CD Copies. / ABK U. I I i I i ( , ='-1=:-:' 1i!f L)q I 5 t{['J * D t F5oa 1r r 'tl\) t z ,\ HIGHCOURT DATED:22/09/2025 \ ORDER CRLP.No.10007 of 2025 i t ! Disposing of thc Criminal Petition s .eRqnlo k-n<q dN'^