The High Court · 2025

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

2. Smt. Usmath Fyaz.Wlo. Shaik Fyaz, Aged about 30 years, Occ Manager, Bharath Institute of Marine Services, Tarnaka, R/o. H. No.3-4-631191232, Sriramanapuram, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad. ,.RESPONDENT/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 the proceedings in C.C. No. 54 of 2023 on the file of Honble lV Additional Chief tMetropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad to the extent of petitioner herein/Accused No. 3 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 all further proceedings in C.C. No. 54 of 2023 on the file of Honble lV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad to the extent of petitioner herein/Accused No.3 Pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri GADDAM JAGANNATHAIvI. Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court mad() the following: ORDER I THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.12935 OF 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner accused No.3 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.54 ot 2023 on the file of the learned lV Additional Chief tr/etropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 448, 341, 384, 506 read with Section 34 of the lndian Penal Code (for short "lPC").

2. Heard the submissions of Sri Gaddam Jagannadham, learned counsel for the petitioner and the Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 --State

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter is squarely covered by the order dated 14.08.2025 in Criminal Petition No.10'144 of 2025. He further submitted that earlier this Court has quashed the proceedings against accused Nos1, 4 and 6, vide order dated 25.09.2025 in Crl.P.No.B947 ot 2025. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to the same relief that was granted in favour of accused Nosl , 4 and 6. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also submitted that the iss-re in the present criminal petition is covered by the earlier order in the above criminal petition 5

6. Perused the record. The Calendar Case was originally filed in C.C,No.19868 of 2019, wherein the accused Nos.2 and 5 were acqurtted. Since the present petitioner was absconding, the case was splrt up and later on it was numbr:red as C.C.No.54 of 2023

7. ln a similar case vide Crl.P.No.3773 of 2025, learned Single Judge of this Court relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of lnvestigation v. Akhilesh Singhl and also relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in case ol Mohammed llias v. Sfafe of Karnataka2 and opined that since the trial Court acquitted the other accused, if the petitioner is subjected to second round of trial, the evidence to be produced against him cannot be different from the one that was produced by the prosecution in the earlier case. With the said observation the Single Judge has allowed the petition filed by the petitioner therein ' .a.ltt loo5 SC( 2(rti N( t 1:txltI : Kart I.-l 5)l 3 B. The case of the petitioner i.e., accused No.3 in this case stands on the same footing as that of accused Nos.2 and 5 in C.C.No.19868 of 2019. The accused Nos.1 to 3 were the students of the Firm run by Marine Training lnstitute run by PWs 1 and 2. They got them admitted for basic training course for deck cadet (Engine cadet course) for three months and after completion of the same, they have sent accused Nos.1 to 3 for apprenticeship for one year, but without completing the same, they returned back. PW1 and 2 have admitted a photograph, wherein accused No.2 was found present in the photograph, holding a spade on a ship. From the evidence of PW'l and 2 it was culled out that they lured the innocent students in the name of providing employment opportunity and saying so collected the amounts under Exs.Dl and D2 and somehow provided some sort of training and sent them to Malaysian ship, in the name of employment but there, the candidates/accused Nos.1 to 3 were forced to work as labourers, and being an Engineering Student, they could not do such work and thus, returned. lt was also held in C.C.No.19868 of 2019 that initially the accused approached the Police on which, the Police along with the accused persons went to the Office of PWs 1 and Z, where pW1 and 2 said to have given some amounts to those persons. By suppressing the said visit of the Police Officers and the persons as shown in Ex.D3, PW1 and 2 have lodged the complaint on 2g.10.2017 as a counter l - blast to the complaint of the accused persons, The f)resent complaint was lodged with inordinate delay and no explanation for the delay was of fered by tlre complainants

9. ln C.l.No.9868 of 2019, the trial Court has he|l in its judgment as under.- "Ex D4 is tnarked on admission of PW2, it is a portion of his 161 Cr.P C statement, which is denied by him. ln his cross exantination he has denied specifically that he did not deposr; as in Ex.D4. "accordingly we sent those three sludents fo the shrps for apprenticeship course on lvlalaysian ship." Though PW1 deposed that the students sent for apprenticeship course in the applications including the application of accused No.2 under Ex.P7, the posl ls shown as Engine cadet and nowhere in those applications, it was ntentioned as apprenticeship course and it is mentioned for the position as Engine Cadet. Hence, it is clear that in the name of providing job, PWs 1 and 2 lured the stLtdents. collected the amounts from them and later deposec! before this Court that they were sent to apprenttceship course, which is nowhere mentioned on those doatments and hence, the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 with that of Ex.P2 to P13 is not corroborating and is quite contradictory to each other."

10. Thus, the Court disbelieved the evidence of PW1 and 2 coupled with Ex.P1 and Ex.P1B. The Ex.P1 is the complaint and Ex.P18 is the pen drive having CC footage of second incident along with 65-8 Certificate. By disbelieving their version, the case ended in acquittal of accused Nos.2 and 5 in the said case. I l 11 . The accused No.'1 is the student, accused No.4 is the father of accused No.1 and accused No,6 is the father of accused No.3. Thus, when the Court has concluded in such a way that it is a counter blast case and also the evidence of PW'1 and 2 and the complaint itself was disbelieved in the said case, no new facts can be culled out even if the present matter is subject to trial. The record further reveals that earlier this Court has quashed the proceedings against accused Nos.1, 4 and 6 in Crl.P.No.B947 of 2025, by order dated 25.09.2025

12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.3 herein in C.C.No.54 of 2023 (Main C.C.No.19BGB of 2019) on the file of lV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad are hereby quashed. lVliscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- A.JAYASREE ASSISTANTREGISTRAR G //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The lV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Osmania University Police Station. 3. One CC to SRl. GADDAM JAGANNATHAM Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. [OUT] 5 Two CD Copies ..\l{\4i A BK HIGH COIJRT DATED: 0711012025 ORDER CRLP.No.12935 of 2025 :. S/6; ( t) , 31 0tI ztffi * DFsr,..-tc 6 \ : 2 *tt ALLOWINIG THE CRLP m\5 ./ lLpL _-.-- -^{i'br

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

2. Smt. Usmath Fyaz.Wlo. Shaik Fyaz, Aged about 30 years, Occ Manager, Bharath Institute of Marine Services, Tarnaka, R/o. H. No.3-4-631191232, Sriramanapuram, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad. ,.RESPONDENT/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 the proceedings in C.C. No. 54 of 2023 on the file of Honble lV Additional Chief tMetropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad to the extent of petitioner herein/Accused No. 3 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 all further proceedings in C.C. No. 54 of 2023 on the file of Honble lV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad to the extent of petitioner herein/Accused No.3 Pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri GADDAM JAGANNATHAIvI. Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court mad() the following: ORDER I THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.12935 OF 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner accused No.3 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.54 ot 2023 on the file of the learned lV Additional Chief tr/etropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 448, 341, 384, 506 read with Section 34 of the lndian Penal Code (for short "lPC").

2. Heard the submissions of Sri Gaddam Jagannadham, learned counsel for the petitioner and the Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 --State

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter is squarely covered by the order dated 14.08.2025 in Criminal Petition No.10'144 of 2025. He further submitted that earlier this Court has quashed the proceedings against accused Nos1, 4 and 6, vide order dated 25.09.2025 in Crl.P.No.B947 ot 2025. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to the same relief that was granted in favour of accused Nosl , 4 and 6. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also submitted that the iss-re in the present criminal petition is covered by the earlier order in the above criminal petition 5

6. Perused the record. The Calendar Case was originally filed in C.C,No.19868 of 2019, wherein the accused Nos.2 and 5 were acqurtted. Since the present petitioner was absconding, the case was splrt up and later on it was numbr:red as C.C.No.54 of 2023

7. ln a similar case vide Crl.P.No.3773 of 2025, learned Single Judge of this Court relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of lnvestigation v. Akhilesh Singhl and also relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in case ol Mohammed llias v. Sfafe of Karnataka2 and opined that since the trial Court acquitted the other accused, if the petitioner is subjected to second round of trial, the evidence to be produced against him cannot be different from the one that was produced by the prosecution in the earlier case. With the said observation the Single Judge has allowed the petition filed by the petitioner therein ' .a.ltt loo5 SC( 2(rti N( t 1:txltI : Kart I.-l 5)l 3 B. The case of the petitioner i.e., accused No.3 in this case stands on the same footing as that of accused Nos.2 and 5 in C.C.No.19868 of 2019. The accused Nos.1 to 3 were the students of the Firm run by Marine Training lnstitute run by PWs 1 and 2. They got them admitted for basic training course for deck cadet (Engine cadet course) for three months and after completion of the same, they have sent accused Nos.1 to 3 for apprenticeship for one year, but without completing the same, they returned back. PW1 and 2 have admitted a photograph, wherein accused No.2 was found present in the photograph, holding a spade on a ship. From the evidence of PW'l and 2 it was culled out that they lured the innocent students in the name of providing employment opportunity and saying so collected the amounts under Exs.Dl and D2 and somehow provided some sort of training and sent them to Malaysian ship, in the name of employment but there, the candidates/accused Nos.1 to 3 were forced to work as labourers, and being an Engineering Student, they could not do such work and thus, returned. lt was also held in C.C.No.19868 of 2019 that initially the accused approached the Police on which, the Police along with the accused persons went to the Office of PWs 1 and Z, where pW1 and 2 said to have given some amounts to those persons. By suppressing the said visit of the Police Officers and the persons as shown in Ex.D3, PW1 and 2 have lodged the complaint on 2g.10.2017 as a counter l - blast to the complaint of the accused persons, The f)resent complaint was lodged with inordinate delay and no explanation for the delay was of fered by tlre complainants

9. ln C.l.No.9868 of 2019, the trial Court has he|l in its judgment as under.- "Ex D4 is tnarked on admission of PW2, it is a portion of his 161 Cr.P C statement, which is denied by him. ln his cross exantination he has denied specifically that he did not deposr; as in Ex.D4. "accordingly we sent those three sludents fo the shrps for apprenticeship course on lvlalaysian ship." Though PW1 deposed that the students sent for apprenticeship course in the applications including the application of accused No.2 under Ex.P7, the posl ls shown as Engine cadet and nowhere in those applications, it was ntentioned as apprenticeship course and it is mentioned for the position as Engine Cadet. Hence, it is clear that in the name of providing job, PWs 1 and 2 lured the stLtdents. collected the amounts from them and later deposec! before this Court that they were sent to apprenttceship course, which is nowhere mentioned on those doatments and hence, the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 with that of Ex.P2 to P13 is not corroborating and is quite contradictory to each other."

10. Thus, the Court disbelieved the evidence of PW1 and 2 coupled with Ex.P1 and Ex.P1B. The Ex.P1 is the complaint and Ex.P18 is the pen drive having CC footage of second incident along with 65-8 Certificate. By disbelieving their version, the case ended in acquittal of accused Nos.2 and 5 in the said case. I l 11 . The accused No.'1 is the student, accused No.4 is the father of accused No.1 and accused No,6 is the father of accused No.3. Thus, when the Court has concluded in such a way that it is a counter blast case and also the evidence of PW'1 and 2 and the complaint itself was disbelieved in the said case, no new facts can be culled out even if the present matter is subject to trial. The record further reveals that earlier this Court has quashed the proceedings against accused Nos.1, 4 and 6 in Crl.P.No.B947 of 2025, by order dated 25.09.2025

12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.3 herein in C.C.No.54 of 2023 (Main C.C.No.19BGB of 2019) on the file of lV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad are hereby quashed. lVliscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- A.JAYASREE ASSISTANTREGISTRAR G //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The lV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Osmania University Police Station. 3. One CC to SRl. GADDAM JAGANNATHAM Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. [OUT] 5 Two CD Copies ..\l{\4i A BK HIGH COIJRT DATED: 0711012025 ORDER CRLP.No.12935 of 2025 :. S/6; ( t) , 31 0tI ztffi * DFsr,..-tc 6 \ : 2 *tt ALLOWINIG THE CRLP m\5 ./ lLpL _-.-- -^{i'br