The High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad.

2. Thirumaiah. S/o Sailu, Aged about 35 years, Occ Police Officer, R/o Dundigal Police Station, Dundigal, Cyberabad, ...RESPONDENTS 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 the records and to Quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 1517 of 2020 on the file of Vlll Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate. Cyberabad at Medchal against the Petitioner l.A. NO: 2 OF 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 stay of all further proceedings in C. C. No. 'l 517 of 2020 on the file of Vlll Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal against the Petitioner including appearance of the petitioner/accused No. 1/First Party in the above case pending the disposal of the main petition for quashing the same. This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing he Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon hearing the argr_ r rents of sri NyAyA MITHRA LAW FIRM (ABHTNAV MAHENDER REDDY KA\)ADr),Advocate for the Petitioner and the public prosecutor on behalf of the i lspondent No1. and none appear the Respondent No2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.12819 of 2025 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1517 of 2020 against the petitioner- Accused No.'1 on the file of learned Vlll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal, registered for the offences under Section '160 of the lndian Penal Code (for sho( 'lPC')

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2/de faclo complainant who is working as Police Constable in Dundigal Police Station, lodged a written complaint stating that on

04.05.2020 at about 1100 hours, while he was performing his patrol duty at Kaisar Nagar, HMDA Park, he found two groups fighting with each other in public place, causing public disturbance and nuisance. On enquiry, he came to know that there were two groups, out of which the first group comprised of ten people and the second group comprised of eight people who were quarrelling with each other, using filthy and abusive language, which intensely affected the tranquility of society.

3. On receipt of the said complaint, the Police investigated the matter^-€ nd filed charge sheet, whereunder, the petitioner is I l i l arrayed as accused No 1. Aggrieved thereb,r this Criminal Petition is filed

4. Heard Abhinav Mahender Reddy Kandadi. l:arned counsel for petitioner, and Sri Jithender Rao Veermalla, lea-ned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No..l . State. 5 Learned counsel for the petitioner submith there being any preliminary enquiry, the petitione d that without -is alleged of offence under Section 160 of lpC and the sarr e amounts to abuse of process of law. He contended that on receipt of complaint from respondent No.2, the police regi:;. :red FlR, and filed charge sheet in a mechanical way, without li -.re being any reasonable suspicion on the petitioner and the s :me indicates that the charge sheet is filed with ulterior motive. F t asserted that the petitioner is a law abiding cilizen and is having : well reputed image in the society and that he is falsely implica,r d in this case which would tarnish his image. He lamented tha allegations of creating public nuisance, there are no =xcept vague specific set of allegations leveled against the petitioner, as sur I , prayed this Court to allow the Criminal petition by quashing tlrr proceedings against the petitioner. -7 J

6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant public prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.i - State, contended that as per the complaint averments, the allegation leveled against the petitioner/accused No.1 is thal along with other accused he has created public nuisance by quarrelling with the other group. He asserted that petitioner was part of group one who quarreled with group two by abusing them in vulgar and filthy language, causing disturbance to the public peace and tranquility. Therefore, prayed this Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

7. Perused the record. Similar matter has been disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.3SOO of 2024, wherein the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.4 therein were quashed by observing at paragraph No.8 as under. "On meticulously perusing the material placed on record, it is noted that during the course of investigation, the Police examined LW.1 who is respondent No.2/de facto complainant, LW.2 who ls a/so a Police Constable and LWs.3 and 4 who were panch for scene of offence. Keeping in view the same, it is peiinent to note that no independent witnesses were examined, basing on which the offence as alleged against the petitioner/accused No.4 would be revealed, which would constitute offence against the petitioner/accused No.4 under Section 160 of lPC. Fufther, ll is a/so to be noted that there are no specific allegations levelled against the petitioner I I I , \**= \! - 4 in the complaint averments and charge she =t averments. That being so, thls Court is of t'e considered view that the proceedings initiat d against the petitioner/accused No.4 are liable lo be quashed." B Applying the same analogy, this Court is al; I of the opinion that the continuation of proceedings ag a nst the petitioner/ accused No.1 would amount to an abu ; r of the process of law. -''' Z!

9. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed, r1 rashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioner/accust C No.1 in CC.No.1517 of 2020 on the file of the Vlll Additional I letropolitan lVlagistrate, at Cyberabad, at lvledchal. lt/iscellaneous applications, if any pending, sh;t also stand closed To, SD/- A.JAYASREE ASSI;TANT REGISTRAR |,.,- SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPYII

1. The VlllAddl. Metropolitan IMagistrate. Cyberabad : Medchal 2. The Station House Officer, Police Station Dundugal , C1t erabad 3. One CC to SRl. NYAYA MITHRA LAW FIRM (ABHINA'/ MAHENDER REDDY KANDADI) Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CC to SRl. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR High court for re state of Telangana at Hyderbad [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies rP AG/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:06n412025 ORDER CRLP.No.12819 ot 2025 ,.1 ,\t ? ]Eit P5 . a) ,,) .\ CRLP IS ALLOWED ?u b \-1, r)