The High Court · 2025

2. Smt. G. Aarthi, W/o. G. Laddu Singh, age 37 years, Occ House Wife, R/o. H No.13-2-749, Raheempura, lVlangalhat, Hyderabad 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 allow the criminal petition and quash the C.C.no. 4859 of 2020 on the file of the XVI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, against the petitioner. ...RESPONDENTS l.A. NO:2OF 2024 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 stay all further proceedings including appearance of petitioners in C.C.no. 4859 of 2020 dated 26.11.2020 on the file of the XVI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, pending disposal of criminal petition. e:::r.# This P^etition comtng on for hearing, upon perusing the Mem: andum of Grounds - of Criminal petition !r1 L,_R9m Singh, Advocate for the petitionercno tf,"" prbti. ,rose"cutoi iiOf * behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and f.tone appeared foi Resp,, cent No 2 _and upon' treaiinj- tne argrments- The Court made the following: ORDER *+,F-y THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI cRIMINAL PETITION No.1 2164 of 2024 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 52g of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') by the petitioners_ accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No 4859 of 2020 on the file of the learned XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, registered for the offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the lndian penal Code, 1860 (for sho('lPC')

2. Heard [Vlr. L Ram Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and tVlr. M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional public prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State. There is no representation for respondent No.2-de facto complainant. Perused the record.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the petitioners and de facto complainant are the family members. The petitioner-accused No.1 and the husband of de facto complainant i.e., LW-2 namely G.Laddu Singh are brothers and they are residing under the same roof. There are ongoing properly disputes between them. On 25.12.2019, while the de facto complainant was engaged in household work, petitioner-accused No.'l poured water on her husband/LW-2. When LW_2 1 :! 2 \ , questioned him, petitioner-accused No.1 wantonly picke,J up quarrel with him and beat him. When the de facto complainant interver ed, petitioners- accused Nos.2 and 3 joined and beat both the de facto c tmplainant and her husband with sticks, causing injuries

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he husband of de facto complainant has filed a civil suit seeking partitic r and separate possession of suit schedule property vrde O.S.No.'l 59 r 'the petitioner-accused No.1 herein and others. ln the f 2020 against said suit, the petitioner-accused No.1 herein has filed I.A.No 595 of ll t21 against the de facto complainant's husband and the same \i1ri s allowed on

18.11.2021, granting temporary injunction in his favour, and restraining the husband o'f de facto complainant and anyone clainl rg through him from constructing wall in the suit schedule property unt I disposal of the suit. There are no specific allegations against the peti ioners and the ' ingredients of the offence alleged against them are not nt rde out. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner ;.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Ptrlic Prosecutor contended that there are specific allegations against thr: tetitioners. lt is further contended that all the allegations levelled in the rr mplaint as well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of trial, and her:e, this is not a w 3 fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the petition

6. Having gone through the record, it is evident that there are ongoing property disputes between the parties, which are purely civil in nature and a civil suit is pending between them. The petitioners have obtained temporary injunction in their favour, restraining lhe de facto complainant's husband and anyone claiming through him. The stick used in the commission of offence was not recovered by the Police during the course of investigation and except lhe de facto complainant and her husband, no independent witnesses were examined. The medical certificates show that the injuries suffered by the victims are 'simple in nature'

7. ln view of the foregoing discussion, this Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.4B59 of 2020 on the file of the learned XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- U.SUDHA SISTANTREGIS ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The XVI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Mangalhat police Station, Hyderabad. 3. Two CCs to The Public Prosecutor, High Court for state of Telangana, Hyderabad.[OUT]

4. One CC to Sri L. Ram Singh, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies \r, - HIGH COURT DATED:04/1 112025 + J ',3 O \- -iHE i Bo t ,.i ' /-- o.+ t 318: Cr. -:---/ \nr () .\ ;\ \ i' ORDER CRLP.No.12'164 of 2024 CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED a aAq.l.' \* -"6c"