The High Court · 2025

2. Mr.P.Suresh, Sub-lnspector of Police; PS, Hayathnagar, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Ranga Reddy District. ...RESPON DENT/DEFACTO-COMPLAI NANT 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 proceedings in C.C.No. 358 OF 2024 on the fi{e of XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hayath Nagar against the peti{ioner/Accused-1 in the interest of justice. 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 in C.C.No. 358 OF 2024 on the file of XIV Additional Metropolitan [/agistrate, Cyberabad at Hayath Nagar including the personal appearance of the petitioner/Accused-1 during the pendency of the present Quash Petition in the interest of justice. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri C. KUMAR, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No. 'l . The Court made the following: ORDER t- I i THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SUREINDER CRIMINAL PETITTON No.t3t 29 0F 2024 ORD ER: \ \ This Criminal petition is filed by the petitioner/Accused No. 1, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 3SB of 2O24, on the file of XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistratt:. Cyberabad at Hayathnagar. I I

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/Ar:cused No. 1 and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assisr ant public Prosecutor for the respondent _ State . Perused the r ecord.

3. When the matter is taken up for heartng, it isr sulmillsd by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issrre raised in the present petition is squarely covered by the order dated 23.O9.2024 passed by this Court in Crl.p.No.g21 Z of 2024. 4. The icrux of the allegation against the petitioner herein is that the petitioner herein and A_2 (against vzhom the proceedings were quashed) have helped A_4 and A-5 in writing 'Duolingo online examination. For the reasons recorded in Crl.P.No.82 1Z of 2024, the proceedings are quashed against A-2. The said reasons are also applicable to this petiticner also, who stands on the same footing as A_2.

5. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.358 of 2024. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. \ Sd/. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUW REGISTRAR I //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hayathnagar' Z. fh" St"tlon House Officei, Hayathnagar Plice Station' Rachakonda' 5. t*o ccs to The public prosecutor, High court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.[OUT] +. Oire CC to Sri C. Kumar, Advocate IOPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies ?k SR/psl HIGH COURT DATED:1910312025 { ORDER CRLP.No.13129 ot 2024 ,a-. /.4' 1,, lt'l ln Zffi L t l)1 .s !r4, T 1}r(rfi ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION ( 1t b THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICD K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No'8217 of 2024 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is hled under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr'P'C J to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/ accused No 2 in C'C'No 358 of 2024 on the file of the learned XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad Commissionerate' registered for the offences punishable under Sections 419 and 42O of the Indian Penal Code, i86O (for short'lPC') and Section 8 of the Telangana State Public Examinatrons (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 (for short 'the Act')

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No 2-Sub inspector of Police lodged a complaint against the petitioner and other accused stating that on receipt of credible information in Venkateshwara Lodge in that some Persons were Present attend the Abroad English Room No.206, HaYathnagar to Qualifying Exam and cheating the Duolingo Online Exam by taking the money, he along with his staff went to the spot and foundsevenmembers.onenquiry,theyrevealedthataccused Nos.4 and 5 are preparing to go to their higher studies in small .l Universities in USA. for Duolingo Exam For that, they want English anguage skills Online. They have completed Reading, Listening and Speaking, but they have given only Rs.S,OOO/ to each one for Writing in Speed and cheating by atte nding another writing exam in speed instead of Duolingo Exam online. Later, respondent No.2 seized 5 Laptops, 7 Smart Cell phones and 4 Passports from them through concessio r cum_selzure panchanama. Basing on the said complaint, a r:ase in Crime No.182 of 2024 was registered for the offences punrshable under Sections 419 and 42O of IpC and Section g of t,re Act. After completion o[ investigation, the police filed charlle sheet, vide C.C.No.358 of 2024, before the learned Xlv. Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad Commissioner. r te. 3. Heard Sri C. Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri E. Ganesh, learned Assrstant public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No. t_ State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit ted that the allegations leveled against the petitioner do not constitute any offence as alreged by respondent No.2. He furth:r submitted that a perusal of the charge sheet would reveal that accused No.1 committed the alleged offence but not the petl roner, at the time of offence the petitioner was present at the scerre of offence, 3 sKs,., Crl.P.No.a217 oJ 2o24 as such, the petitioner was implicated in this case. Further, the petitioner was nothing to do with the said examination. He further submitted that accused Nos.4 and 5 has taken the help of the petitioner, except that there are no other specific allegations against him. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that that the presence of the petitioner was clearly found by the Police at the scene of offence. He further submitted the petitioner was taken into custody as he was attending the said test on behalf of the other accused and the same requires trial. Hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

6. For better appreciation of the facts of the case, it is apt to refer Sections 2(e) and 8 of the Act which reads as follows: "Sections 2(e) of the Act: Public Examination means any examination either quali$ring or competitive conducted by the Government or any other authority or body or any University under any Law for. the time being in force for awarding or granting any Degree, Diploma Certificate or any other academic distinction or for qualifying for admission into any course of study or for selecting for appointment or regularization or E sI(s,J CrI P-No.a217 o! 2024 ..1 promotion to any post in public service and includes any other examination declared by the Govcrnment by Notiltcation to be a public examination. Section 8 of the Act: Whoever contravenes or attempts or cons tires to contravene or abets the contravention of the provisions of Section 3 or Section 4 or Sectjon S or Section 6 or Section 7 5 (or Section 74) s;hall be punishable with imprisonment for a terrr which shall not be less than three years.,,

7. In the present case, the said test is not conrlucted by the University, as such; it does not come under th: category of Public Examination. Further, it is evident that rhe petitioner was not attending the test and he was present at the scene of offence for helping accused Nos.4 and 5, who are appearing for the said test on 19 .O2.2024.

8. As per the prosecution, the petitioner is an aspirant student who wishes to pursue higher studie; in foreign universities, which requires Eng[sh Language Skilj and accused Nos.4 and 5 are not merit enough to attend the English Proficiency test in Duolingo. As such, accused Nos 4 and 5 gave an amount of Rs.S,OOO/- (Rupees five thousand ;nly) each to the petitioner and the other accused for completing the said test t 5 sl(s,J Crt P.No.E217 ol 2024 on their behalf. Accordingly, at the stage of type writing skill test, accused No. I completed the said test with another Bluetooth connected key board instead of accused Nos.4 and 5 and committed cheating in attending the said test in Duolingo by givlng money to the petitioner and other accused, whereas, the documents filed by the petitioner shows that he already attended the said test and his results were released. Admittedty, there is no material evidence to show the petitioner held accused Nos.4 and 5 attended the said test on behalf of accused Nos.4 and 5. Therefore, since there are no grounds to proceed further, this Court is of the considered opinion that the proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed.

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners/ accused No.2 in C.C.No.358 of 2024 on the file of the learned XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad Commissionerate, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. Date:23.09.2024 SAI K. SUJANA