The High Court · 2025

2. Smt. Kaka Thulasamma, Wo.Kaka Mahesh, aged House wife, R/o. Unjupalli Village, Charla Mandal, District. about 52 Bhadradri years, Occ. Kothagudem ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT ...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO-COMPLAlNANT 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 in F.l.R.No 75 of 2025, dated 09-09-2025 on the file of S.H.O., Cherla Polrce Station, Bhadradri Kothagudem District against the petitioners/Accused 1 and 2 herein and quash the same. l.A. NO: 2OF 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 including arrest of the petrtroners/Accused l and 2 herein in connection with F.l.R lto.75 of 2025, dated 09-09-2025 on the file of S.H O , Cherla police Station, B I rdradri Kothagudem District. pending disposal of the above criminal petition in thi lJon'ble court. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing re [Vremorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing re arguments of sri M.S. Balasubrarnanium, Advocate for the petitioner an i Ms.shalini Saxena. Assistant Public Prcsecutor (TG) on behalf of the Resporrr ent No..l and none appeared for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER -r{ THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.12154 ot 2025 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No.75 of 2025 on the file of the Cherla Police Station, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, registered for the offence under Section 105 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ('tor short 'BNS')

2. Heard Mr. M.S. Balasubramanium, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms.Shalini Saxena, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have not committed any negligent act to face the trial under Section 105 of BNS. The victim has stepped into the tank and he could not be brought out to save his life. Even the allegations made in the complaint do not attract the ingredients of Section 105 of BNS. The petitioner No.1 is a contractor and the petitioner No.2 is a Mason, carrying out the work of contract, and they are not concerned with the alleged incident of the victim stepping into the t4nk and his inability to come out, resulted in his death and therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. ETD.J Crl.P No.12154 o12025

4. Learned Assistant publrc prosecutor ha; submitted that the petitioners had knowledge that the tank is n; r ow and that the persons, who went into the tank, would go breatt,l rss and therefore. they could have cautioned the victims of not goirg lnto the tank. but the said care was not taken by the petitioners. I he act of sheer negligence is made out from the contents of t e complatnt and hence. prayed to drsmiss the petition

5. Perused the record_ 6 The allegations point out that the husbir cj of the de facto complainant went to therr cotton field and whil: on his way, he teached a water tank which was under construc irn under Mission Bhaghiradha. He learnt that one lssak went insidr he water tank so as to switch on the engine for the purpose of drir t ng water and he could not come out and as such, one A.Appalaralr lnd another went into the tank to save him, but they too could not cc r te out of the tank and the labourers who were present there, were rtising their voice for help Thus, the husband of the de facto compl rinant went there to help them and rvent into the tank and he could ^ )t come out as a result of which, he lost his breath. .../ .@rl#.,ry . ,/' J ETD,J crt.P. No.12154 0t 2025

7. The petitioners herein are the contractor and Mason of the said water tank, which was under construction. lt is alleged that they are well aware of the dimensions of the tank and the possibility of the breathlessness if anyone goes into the tank, but they have not taken any safety measures of providing any steps or some measures to heip the person who goes into the tank to clmb up and come out of it. That is the reason none of the persons, who went into the tank could not come out. Thus, it shows that there was no provision inside the tank to enable a person to catch hold of the same or to step on the same and come out of the tank. The investigation is still in progress. The contents of complaint do not disclose the presence of the petitioners. In view of the prima facie allegations against the petitioners, the petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismrssed. B Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SO/-S.MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER To, , I[",r,:1",,"" House Oficer, Cherta potice Station, Bhadradri Kothagudem

2. One CC to SRl. tvl.S. Balasubramanium Advocate tOpUCl 3 Two ccs to the pubric prosecutor, High court for the state of rerangana at Hyderabad [OUT] cD coPies K/tsJ*o % HIGH COURT DATED:1711012025 ORDER CRLP.No.12154 of 2025 ,1 \i.. Dismissing the Criminal Petition \I a ii M

1..t, .-\ '/ -l' ,/' t .7 , - ,., '':. ) .//