Turkayamjal Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District v. Ranga Reddy District

Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, High Court, Hyderabad.

2. A.V. Vijay Kumar, S/o.Late A. Rama Rao, Aged 66 years, Occ:Retired Employee, R/o. H.No. 4-14, Near Brahmanapally X Road, Turkayamjal Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ...RESPONDENTS/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 Quash the docket order dated 09- 07-2024 passed in Crf.M.P.NO. 1153 of 2023 in C.C.No. 1281 of 2016 on the file of Judicial First Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court-cum-lV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-lv Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. l.A. NO: 2OF 2024 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, including personal appearance of the Petitioners in C.C.NO.1281 of 2016 on the file of Judicial First Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court-cum-lV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-lV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. l.A. NO: 'l OF 2024 Petition under Section 482 ot Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to Suspend the docket order dt. 09'07-2024 in Crl.M.P.No.1153 of 2O23 in C.C.NO. 1281 ot 2026 on the file of Judicial First Magiskate of First Class, Special Mobile Court-cum-lv Addl. Metropolitan megistrate-cum-lV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2025 Between: A.V. Vijay Kumar, S/c. Late A. Rama Rao, Aged 66 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o. H.No.4-14, Near Brahmanapally X Road, Turkayamjal Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. VERSUS ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT No.2

1. K. Raghavendra Sharma A-3, S/o.Late KGK Murthy, Aged 48 years, Occ: Cab Driver, R/o. H.No.11-4113, AnmalVillage, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

2. The State of Telangana, Through Chaitanyapuri Police Station, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, High Court, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER/ ACCUSED 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 vacate the interim stay dated 0111012024 in Crl.P. No. 11890 of

2024. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Crimrnal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri G. SUNDARESAN, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and Sri Pingali Rameshwar Rao, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following ORDER: THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITIO N No.l{890 ol 2024 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.3 seeking to quash and set aside the impugned Docket Order dated

09.47.2024 in CRL.|V.P.No.1153 of 2023 in C.C.No.12B1 of 2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court-cum-lV Additional IMetropolitan [/agistrate-cum-lV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy Distrit at L.B.Nagar (for short 'the learned trial Court'), wherein the learned trial Court allowed the Criminal ft/iscellaneous Petition by receiving document on behalf of the prosecution

02. Heard Sri G.Sundaresan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent No.1-State and Sri Pingali Rameshwar Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and perused the record.

03. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.3 submitted that the learned trial Court ought not to have allowed the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, as the same is illegal, improper, incorrect, and contrary to the well-settled principles of law. lt is contended that the trial Court failed to see that the petition filed by the prosecution under Section 242(2) Cr.P.C. is not maintainable, and that \ 2 the document relied upon is a fabricated one, filed only to fill up the lacuna and latches in the case. The learned trial Court further failed to appreciate that the person who is alleged to have authored the document dated 04 08.2022 is not connected with the case and was not examined bv the Police. Hence, he prayed for setting aside the impugned Order by allowing this Criminal Petition

04. l-he learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for Respondent No.2 submitted that the trial Court after hearing both sides and considering the material available on record passed the impugned order by receiving the document, therefore there are no grounds for interfering with the order passed by the learned trial Court and hence, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

05. As seen from the impugned Order, the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the provision of law under Section 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. lt is clearly observed by the learned trial Court that no prejudice would be caused to the accused, if the document is received as the accused will have right to cross-examine the witness with regard to the said docurnent. [Vloreover, the learned trial Court has received the said document on record, subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility. Therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned Order dated

09.07.2024 in CRL.M.P.No.1153 of 2023 in C.C.No.1281 of 2A16 passed by the learned Judicial [Vlagistrate of First Class, Special tt/obile Court- 3 cum-lv Additional tVtetropolitan Magistrate-cum-lV Additional Junior civil Judge,RangaReddyDistritatL.B.Nagar,aSsuch,therearenomeritsin this Criminal Petition 06 Withtheaboveobservations,thisCriminalPetitionis disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending' if any' shall stand closed To, SDI. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGI /,TRUE COPY// OFFICER

1. The Judicial Magistrate of First class, special Mobile court-cum-lV Additional Metropolitan fUa'gistrate-cum-lV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

2. The Station Hous6 Officer, Chaitanyapuri Police Station, Rachakonda District' 3. One CC to SRI G. SUNDARESAN, Advocate (OPUC) 4. One CC to SRI PINGALI RAMESHWAR RAO, Advocate (oPUC) 5. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High court for the State of Telangana, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT).

6. Two CD CoPies M. CHRK/GR t d HIGH COURT DATED.2610812025 ORDER CRLP.No.I1890 ot 2024 1HE S14 14: [E N0\J xE t ) I t, \ ,( ( ,'1. t CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISPOSED OF. q 1 \\ 15 \