The High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT

2. Vedaprakash Traders, Rep. by its Proprietor Maduri Vedaprakash, S/o vishwanath, Age Not Known, H.No. 12-6-112, Ramannapet, Warangal ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under 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 call for the records relating to Crl, M.P. No. 796 of 2025 in STC Nl No. 41 of 2024 pending on the file of the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Warangal and quash the Order, dated 18/06/2025 passed by the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Warangal in Crl. M.P. No. 796 of 2025 in STC Nl No. 41 of 2024, and recall the NBW's issued against the Petitioners l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that i r the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitior, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in ST( Nl No. 41 of 2024 pending on the file of the I Additional Judicial First Class M,r listrate at Warangal, including the appearance of the Accused and framing of the charges till the disposal of the above Quash Petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing he Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argumen's of Sri BOMMINENI VIVEKANANDA, Advocate for the Petitioners and SFI JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of t re Respondent No.1 and None Appeared for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER l. l THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.10897 of 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suiaksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') by the petitioners/accused seeking to quash the order dated 18.06.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.796 of 2025 in STC Nl.No.41 ot 2024 by the learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Warangal.

2. Heard Mr.Bommineni Vivekananda, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.'l -State. 3, Leamed cdunsel for the petitioners submitted that the trial Court dismissed the petition, which was filed to recall the NBW on 18.06.2025 on the ground that the accused was called absent on that date. He further submitted that the presence of the accused is not required for recalling the warrant. Hence, he prayed to set aside the said order.

4. Leamed Additional Public Prosecutor submitted to pass appropriate orders in the petition. { 2

5. Perused the docket order in Crl.M.P.l,t t-796 of 2025 in STC Nl.No.41 of 2024 passed by the leamed ltril rgistrate, The docket order dated 18.06.2025 reads as follows: "Counter filed by the Counsel of Complainanl. Accused called present as already ample opportunity tas been granted by the C,ourt. Accused counsel is d rected to produce the Accused before the Court. Hen'e re call stands cancelled. PS lnthezrgunj is dirccted tr t err"or. the warrant."

6. On the same day, the Learned lttl rgistrate has passed the docket order on the STC N1.No.41 ot iO24 reads as follows "Comptainant called presenl. Complainant cour sel called present Accused called absent. Accused Cour sel called present. Crl.M.P. was posfed for counter. Cot,nter filed by the Counsel for Complainant in ALM.P. .a s already ample opportunity was granted by the ' )ourt for appearance of Accused, in spite of which th= Accused failed to appear before the Court. H=rce P.S lnthezargunj is directed to execute the Warre t t and file repoft on payment of process." 7 Thus, it appears that there happer ed to be a typographical mistake. A comparative perusal of trr th the orders reveals that some mistakes occurred while typir g the orders dated'18.062025 in the Crl.M.P. The docket orctr in the STC revealb that the accused was not present bt t they were represented by counsel. Hence, Court has observ() I that in spite 3 of granting ample opportunity, the accused was absent. Hence, the Police were directed to execute a warrant.

8. However, the grievance of the petitioners herein is that their petition vide Crl.M.P.No.796 of 2025 in STC Nl.No.41 of 2024 under Section 7O(2) of Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the trial Court

9. Considering the submissions of both counsel and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners are directed to appear before the trial Court on 15.09.2025. Upon such appearance and on filing of a proper petition by the counsel for the petitioners, the trial Court shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders. lt is further directed that the NBWs under challenge shall remain stayed until then. lt is made clear that if the petitioners fail to comply with the above directions, the relief granted herein shall stand automatically vacated

10. Accordingly this Criminal Petition is disposed of with the above direction Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/. P.PONNA KRISHNA ASSI TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SE TION OFFICER To, 1 The I Additional Judiciar First c{ass Magistrate at warangar, warangar District 2 The Station House Officer, lntezargunj Police Station' ln:r zargunj' Warangal District

3. One CC to SRI BOMMINENI V|VEKANANDAAdvocate [ )PUC] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor' High Court for the State c Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD CoPies VTWPSL HIGH COURT DATED: 2610812025 ORDER CRLP.No.10897 ot2O25 -.. ].\ ,rf::\., ( C) rAtl 2t2t J? (;.' )- I {'1 * * I) i I I I i I l, I I I I I I i ! I , I I t t I DISPOSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION ,\ j