The High Court · 2025

1. Sri.Devabakthuni Sambasiva Rao, S/o.Late RangaRao, Aged 59 Yrs, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. H,No.1-29, Pesarlanka Village, Bhattiprolu Mandal, Bapatla District.

2. Smt.Meka Greeshma, Wo. Meka Prudhvi Krishna, Aged 33 Yrs, Occ. Housewife, R/o. Flat No.403, Kinetic Magnum Block-B, Calvary Temple Road, Near Miyapur Metro Station, Miyapur, Serilingampally Mandal, RR District, 3. Meka Prudhvi Krishna, S/o. M. Satyanarayana, Aged 42 Yrs, Occ. Software Engineer, R/o. Flat No.403. Kinetic Magnum Apartments, Block - B, Metro Water Works Road, Miyapur, Hyderabad - 500 049. ..Petitioners/A1 to A3 AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. Through SHO, Miyapur Police Station, Cyberabad District,

2. Mekala Pavitra, S/o. Makala Nagaraju, aged About 40 Years Occ. House Wife, R/o. Flat.No. 303, Calvary Temple Road, Near Miyapur Metro Station, SeilingampallyVillage, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana- ..Respondents/De-facto 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 all the proceedings against the petitioners/Accused No. 1 to 3 in S.C. No.620 of 2023 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs/STs (P0A) Act, 1989-cum-Vll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B,Nagar. l.A. NO: 2 OF 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 +"r' ---1 pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 3 in s.c. No.620 of 2023 on the file of the special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs/STs (p0A)Act, 1989-cum-Vll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, pending disposal of the main Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri r Sireesha, Advocate for the Petitioners and the sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of None appeared for the Respondent No.2. CRIMINAL PETITIOt\] NO: 8007 OF 20 24 Between: Mekala Nagaraju, S/o. Jakraiah, Age 47 years, Occ ADE in TG GENCO, R/o Flat No. 303, Kinetic Magnum block- B, Near Miyapur. H. No 7- 1gg, Ambedkar Nagar, Kallur Village and Mandal, Khammam Disfrict, ...petitioner/Accused AND 1 2 State of Telangana, Represented by Public Prosecutor High Court of Telangana, Through PS Miyapur. ...RespondenUComplainant Meka Greeshma, Wo Meka Pruthvi Krishna, Age 32 years , Occ House- wife, R/o B- Block. K,netrc Magnum, Miyapur, HydeAbad. - ...RespondenUDefacto Complainant 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 Quash the Proceedings in cc No. 1855/2023 on the file of Vlll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, at Kukatpally, Cyberabad. l.A. NO: 2 OF 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 the proceedings in cc 1855/2023 on the file of Vlll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate. at Kukatpally, cyberabad including appearance, arrest of the petitioner pending disposal of Quash petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri Nimma Narayana, Advocate for the Petitioner and the sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri T. Sireesha, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: I I I Y THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.12886 & 8007 0F 2024 COMMON ORDER: Crl.P.No. 12886 of 2024 is hled by the accused questioning the proceedings against them for the offence under Sebtion 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST(pOA) Act r/w.34 of IpC. The said charge sheet was filed on the basis of the complaint filed by the defacto complainant/Mekala pavithra.

2. Crl.P.No.8O07 of 2024 is Iiled by the petitioner questioning the proceedings against him on the basis of the complaint filed by Meka Greeshma, which resulted in a charge sheet before the concerned Court. Meka Greeshma is the 2.d petitioner in Crl.P.No. 12886 of 2024.

3. Since the issue involved in these petitions is arising out of the very same incident, both the petitions are heard together and disposed by way of this common order.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, the learned Assistant public prosecutor for the respondent - State. Perused the record. I I

5. On 26.07.2023, Mekala pavithra lodged a complaint at 3:30 p.m. and Meka Greeshma lodged a complaint at 3:50 p.m.

6. Both the complainants in both the cases are living in the same Apartment complex in the 3ra and 4th floors. The flat of Mekala Pavithra is on the 3.a floor and the flat of Meka Greeshma is on the 4tr, floor.

7. Both the house wives lodged complaints against other family alleging that one husband has passed remarks and outraged her modesty.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the petition€r Cr1.P.No.8OO7 of 2024 would submit that the complaint filed by Meka Greeshma which is at 3:50 p.m. is an afterthought, after a complaint was filed by Mekala pavithra. Further, Mekala Pavithra lodged a complaint with the Commissioner of police on 07'06.2023 alleging that the petitioner who is a resident of flat No.3O3 was making sounds intentionally, which amounts to insult. In the said complaint, there is no mention about any kinds of acts of outraging modesty. However, she has lodged a complaint alleging that her modestSr was outraged. Counsel further submits that complaint filed by Mekala Greeshma is an r \ To, 1 2 J 4 q afterthought, since the petitioner lodged a complaint and 20 minutes thereafter the present complaint was frled. 9 . It appears that there were constant fights in between both the parties over a period of time. Whether the allegations leveled against one another are true or not, cannot be decided in quash proceedings. As argued by the learned counsel, even earlier, there was a complaint lodged by Mekala Pavithra, will not have a bearing on the proceedings subsequently liled before the Police.

10. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances, if so advised, the parties can seek tralsfer of both the cases to be tried before one Court, to avoid conflicting Iindings.

10. With the said observation, these Criminal Petitions are disposed off. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall closerl SD/. T TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// E TION OFFICER The Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act' .198g-cum-Vll Additional Diitrict and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. The Vll AlOitional District Judge Cum SCs/STs Special Court at LB Nagar' Cyberabad. The Vlll Additional Metropolitan [/agistrate at Kukatpally, Cyberabad' The Station House Officer, tvtiyapur Police Statron, Cyberabad' TwoCCstoPublicProsecutor,'HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat Hyderabad. (OUT)

6. One CC to Sri. T Sireesha, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to Sri. Nimma Narayana, Advocate [OPUC] B. Two CD CoPies DL/PSL *e HIGH COURT DATED:19/03/2025 COMMON ORDER CRLP.Nos.12886 & 8007 of ZOZ4 .1r d Sr4, Ol-' a () 27 A|lfr 7trt5 * c F:i,, ,.i* ,;- * -\AL PETITIONS ARE DISPOSED OF I