High Court · 2026

nqana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court for the vE6iiiua, i"tiigana State. Respondent 2. chekkali tvlurali Krishna, S/o. Bheemaiah,^aged 54 years occ. Tahsildar - cum- Joint suu-neqisi;br-'Fv; iEi N;''i2o: 4th Flbor' .silkv Apartments *;iia; lw rvrarrei,"r'liai r-.e. r"ragqr chdck.Post Hvd9.rabg{' erstwhile *"iri"o a1 tar,.ltoai' "r. .loint sublRegistrar Nagaram Mandal, suryapet Districtl Telangana State ...RespondenUDefacto Complainant Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the .circumstances stated in ihe Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may to QUASH the charse Sheet No.32B of 2024, dated 16.05.2024, ;;';;;."J Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thungathurthy, Suryapet District' a I.A. NO:2OF 2O24 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in .the .circumstances Stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may 6u pGur"o to STAy all further proceedings in charge Sheet.No.32B of 2024, Ort"A f O.OS.Z024, Judicial First Class Magistrate' Thungathurthy' Suryapet District including appearance of the Petitioner herein' l.A. NO: 3 OF 2024 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that irt the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, he High Court may be pleased to STAY all further proceedings in Charge Sh:d No.32B of 2O24, dated 16.05.2024, Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thung athu(hy, Suryapet District. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing t1 e lVemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing tl e arguments of Mr K.VENKAT REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioners and Srtt. S. Madhavi, the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Responde rt No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER a THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.12127 ot 2024 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against them in C.C.No.328 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thungathurth, Suryapet District, registered for the offence under Section 353 read with 34 of the lndian Penal Code (for short'lPC')

02. Heard Sri K. Venkata Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused and Smt S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. No representation on behalf of the respondent No.2. Perused the record

03. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners- accused Nos.'I and 2 allegedly went to the chambers of the a Mandal Revenue Officer (IURO), Nagaram, and demanded the respondent No.2 and others to effect mutation of the land in the name of the petitioner-accused No.2. However, the said request was refused by the respondent No.2 on the ground that a case was pending in respect of the said land. lt is further 2 alleged that the petitioners-accused Nos.1 ancl 2 deposited certain amounts into the bank accounts of the resi; ,ondent No.2 and another person with an intention to falsely imll icate them in a bribe case. Thereby, the petitioners-accused tlos.1 and 2 had committed the offence under Section 353 rea: with Section 34 of lPC.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioners s;r bmitted that the petitioners are nothing to do with the alleged r ffence. The petitioners approached the respondent No.2 for nr rtation of the land but he had demanded certain amount from 1t e petitioners but the petitioners refused the same. For which, th I respondent No.2 prolonged the matter. The petitioner-accuti rd No.1 is a practicing Advocate and the petitioner-accused Nc,.2 is a Senior Citizen. All the allegations leveled against the p,r titioners are false and baseless. Hence, he prayed to quaslr the criminal t proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos,1 lnd 2.

05. On the other hand, learned Addit rnal Public Prosecutor appearing for the State contended ttr rt there are triable issues and factual aspects to be exanr red by the learned trial Court and it is not a fit case t: quash the 3 proceedings against the petitioners at this juncture and the matter is to be decided after conducting full-fledged trial by the learned trial Court and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition

06. Upon hearing the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for both sides and on perusal of the material available on record it is evident that certain amounts were deposited into the accounts of the respondent No.2 and another individual through a cash deposit machine by entering the necessary credentials of the respondent No.2 and the said individual. Moreover, there are allegations of verbal abuse and criminal intimidation. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the matter involves disputed questions of fact, which are triable in nature, and the truth or otherwise of the allegations can be determined only upon conclusion of the trial Hence, the proceedings against the petitioner-accused are not a liable to be quashed at this stage

07. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and taking into account that the main case pertains to the year 2024, this Criminal Petition is 4 disposed of by dispensing with the personal appe arance of the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 before the learrr:d trial Court, except when their presence is specifically requir :d during the course of trial, subject to the condition that th I petitioners- accused Nos.1 and 2 shall be duly represented by their learned counsel on each date of hearing. ln the event of failure of the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 to appear befoi,the learned trial Court on any specific date as directed, thi ; order shall stand vacated automatically. The learned trial Court shall proceed with the trial uninfluenced by any of the >bservations made in this Order and shall dispose of the rr rin case as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applicit ions, if any, shall stand closed. NOTE: This order is amended as per the Court order dated 09-01-2026 passed in l.A.No.1 of 2026 by rectifuino "Smt. S. Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Frosecutor for the State" instead of "Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State." This amended order substitutes the earlier order despatched on 01-12-2025' SD/. I' PONNA KRISHNA ASSIS TANT REGISTRAR I SD/-T.PONNAKRISHNA SSiI ,TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The Judicial First Class Ma istra!e at r!slig4!l!4ll

2. fhe Station House Officer, Nagaram Police Station, Suryapet Dist. 3. One CC to Mr. VENKAT REDDY KODUMURY, Advocate TOPUCI 4. Two CD Copies Ya- / a HIGH COURT DATED: 3111012025 09t0112026 \ \ s 1 6 J'il; o,IJ ( j AMENDED ORDER CRLP.No.12127 of 2024 t a Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is Di ;posed of. G ,n"N 5p"