Z. Heard Mr.K.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri v. Rohith

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 quash the Proceedings in C.C.No.8 of 2013 pending on the file of Principal Special Judge for Trial of SPE and ACB Cases. Hyderabad to secure the ends of justice as the same is nothing but abuse of process of law and the I.A NO: oF 2025 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.8 of 2013 pending on the file of Principal Special Judge for Trial of SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad, including appearance of the Petitioner pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V Rohith ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. T. Bala Mohan Reddy, Special Public Prosecutor and Standing Counsel for ACB on behalf of the Respondent No. 1. The Court made the following: ORDER I I ]'HE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVIEADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.1'l 320 of 2025 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.8 of 2013 against the petitioner-accused on the file of Principal Special Judge for trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad, for the offences under Sections 13 (2) read urith 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Z. Heard Mr.K.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri V. Rohith, learned counsel on record for the petitioner and Mr. T. Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Special public prosecutor and Standing Counsel for ACB appearing for respondent No..l-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is facing false allegations and that a disproportionate assets case has been lodged against him and that chargr-. sheet is filed in 2013 and he has been suffering for all these yerars. He further submitted that a notice has been issued by the lnvestigating Agency and that he has given his explanation consisting of 3:2 pages, but they have not considered the same. He further submitted that the judgment of the Hon'bre Apex court in Nirankar Nath pande v. state \ I I I 2 ETD,J Crl.P. No.11320 of 2025 of U.P. and othersl supports his case and it is squarely applicable to the present case and therefore, in view of ttre said judgment, the proceedings against the petitioner be quashed'

4. Learned special Public Prosecutor for ACB has submitted that the discharge petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed and then prosecution has filed a petition for withdrawal and a G.O. was issued to that effect, but the trial court dismissed the petitioner filed for withdrawal. Subsequently, the proceedings were continued and right now, the trial is at the fag end, and 45 witnesses have already been examined before the trial court and five witnesses are yet to be examined, therefore, quashing the proceedings at this stage is not permissible. He further submitted that the lnvestigating Agency could gather ample evidence during the course of investigation and also it is subjected to trial since majority of witnesses are examined and therefore, he prayed to dismiss the petition

5. Perused the record.

6. The petitioner is facing the allegations for the offences under sections 13 (2) read with 13(1Xe) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. G.O. Ms. No.31 dated 03.11"2023 was issued \ t crl.p. No.5009 of 2024 dt.04.12.2024 I I I I i 3 ETD,J Ct|.P. No.11320 of 2025 permitting the prosecution to withdraw the case against the petitioner. herein. Subsequently, the petition under Section :321 Cr.P.C. seeking permission to withdraw the prosecution was dismissed by the Special Judge for trial of SPE & ACB Cases in Crl.M.P. No.23B of 2023 in CC No.8 of 2013 vide orders dated 19.07.2024. Agr;rieved by the said orders, the petitioner herein has filed a revision petition in Crl.R.C. No.'1002 of 2024. This Court, after discussing elaborately, has dismissed the revision case. This Court has also ciscussed about the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. K. Ajith and others2, wherein principles on the withdrawal of prosecution under Section 321 Cr.P.C. were laid ,lown and also the Constitutional Bench decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar and others3 was also discussed and in the light of the said decisions, the revision case was dismissed. Again the present petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the proceedings.

7. The record discloses that the CC is pending and the trial has already been commenced and as per the submission of the learned Special Public Prosecutor, 45 witnes:;es are already examined. The said submission is not opposed by the counsel for the \ petitioner. The record further discloses that the prosecution has relied ' crl.A. No.697 0f 202 l, dared 28.07.2021 'ntR lggz sc 8zz 4 ETD,J Crl.P. No.l1320 of 2025 -re upon 49 documents. Thus, the veracity of the statements of the witnesses and also the evidentiary value of those documents need to be tested during course of trial and need to be adjudicated. B. ln Nirankar Nath Pande's case (1 supra), relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the appellant therein has declared his and his wife's assets and his wife was also earning from teaching yoga, agriculture and from receiving house rent. The said declarations were also supported by relevant income tax returns. The ornaments of the appellant's wife were sold for certain amounts and that was also disclosed. Thus, the Apex Court has considered that the income of the wife of the appellant must be considered as well while calculating the total income and assets. Slnce both the appellant and his wife have filed relevant income tax returns in order to show their respective income and assets, the respondent therein in their counter affidavit have not denied the income tax returns of the appellant or alleged them to be forged or fabricated, it was held that when a public servant was submitting his income tax returns, they should be presumed to be true and correct. Thus, considering the said aspects, it was found that the income is more than the assets and hence, proceedings were quashed against the appellant therein. i i I I i t I i E E I I I i I , \,t 5 EfD,J Crl.P. No.l1320 of 2025

9. ln the present case, there is ampler material collected' during the course of investigation in support of prosecution case and is pending for consideration before the trial court The facts of the present case differ with that of the decision ci:ed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Hence, the same is nct applicable to the present case. Further this Court is conscious of the fact that the petition filed under Section 321 Ct.P.C. for withdr:awal of prosecution was dismissed by the trial court and the revision fi ed against the said orders was also dismissed by the High Court However, in the judgment of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsnhbhai Xarmur and others v. State of Gujarat and anothera, it was held that. "Economic offences involving the financial rnd economic well-being of the state have implications whrch li: beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private dlsputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash wherr) the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or eoonomic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."

10. ln the light of the above said decision and in view of the above helcl discussion, the criminal petition lacks merit and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. ' lzouy e sc<: o+t 6 ETD,J Crl.P. No.11320 of 2O25 0

11. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. C. DEEPIKA REG /TRUE COPY// N OFFICER To, Hyderabad

1. The Principal special Judge for Trial of SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad 2. Two CCs to ti ;TrG"6G-Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, City Range-I, 3. T\i/; CCs to public prosecutor, High 9_o!rt of Telangana (oUT) 4. One CC to SRl. V Rohith, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies EPR/SA \a \ HIGH COIJRT DATED:1910912025 ORDER CRLP.No.11320 of 2 25 ] {HE s)4 Y ?5twq )(' 'A* TC ....,.*.*:: DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION qr6'A &.'S-