The High Court · 2025

2. Smt. Sujatha Bathija, D/o Smt. Lata Bathija, aged 63 years, Oc c Housewife, R/o Plo[No. 1, Flat No. 102, Victory Mansion, Santoshima Colony, West Marredpally, Secunderabad - 500026. ...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 Quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 2750 ot 2024 arising out of FIR No. 226 of 2024 on the file of the X Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Secunderabad against the Petitioner/Accused l.A. NO: 3 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. 2750 of 2024 on the file of the X Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Secunderabad, until the disposal of this Criminal Quash Petition I.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 dispense with the personal appearance of the Petitioner/Accused in the proceedings in C. C. No. 2750 of 2O24 arising out of FIR No. 226 OF 2024 on the file of the X Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Secunderabad, except on such dates as may be specifically directed This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing tle Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argum€ nts of Ms. AMERA PASHA, Advocate for the Petitioner and SRl. JITHENDER FAO VEERAMALLA, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondeit No.1 and None Appeared for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.13263 o12025 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.2750 of 2024 on the file of X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, for the offences under Sections 316(2),318(4), 351(2) & 352 of BNS

2. Heard Ms. Amera Pasha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.'1-State

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no truth in the allegations leveled against the petitioner and that it is only a simple money recovery matter that is pending between the petitioner and the de facto complainant and that the petitioner took money from the de facto complainant and if at all she has delayed the payment or not made any payment, the de facto complainant can file a suit for r6covery of money, but instead, she has resorted to file the present complaint, which is not maintainable. He further submitted that communication is still going on between both the parties and that she never insulted or intimidated the de facto complainant at any point of time. He further submitted that the petitioner has issued a chque for \ -/ ) ETD,J Crl.P. No.13263 o/I2025 Rs.26.00 lakhs to the de facto complainant, but it is alleged that she has not paid the amounts. He further submitted rhat none of the ingredients get attracted to establish the offence of criminal breach of trust or cheating against the petitioner. He further sutrnritted that since there is no intimidation or insult committed by the pe itioner, the other offences also do not get attracted and hence, he prayc,d to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the prosecution could make out during the course of invesligation that the amounts were credited to the account of the accused from the account of respondent No.2-de facto complainant, lt.hich shows that there was money transactions between both the paiios and that the petitioner has. taken amounts from the respondent lrlo.2 and also issued a cheque for Rs.20.00 lakhs, which was takern as hand loan and that the prosecution could collect the certified bank statement of the account of LW.1 and on the analysis of the sare, it is clearly established that an amount of Rs.20.00 lakhs was cebited from the account of the de facto complainant and credited to th: account of the petitioner-accused and that when the de facto compla nant has asked for repayment of money, the petitioner has abused ancl insulted the de facto complainant. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss th,: petition. ./ J EfD,J Crl.P. No.13263 of 2025

5. Perused the record

6. The contents of the complaint and the recitals of charge sheet also point out pima facie allegations against the petitioner. The bank transactions, which are reflected in the recitals of charge sheet do point out the paymenls made through bank from the account of LW.1 to the account of the petitioner. The truth or otherwise of the allegations and the strength of these bank account statements can be evaluated only after full-fledged trial. Hence, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. However, it is deemed appropriate to dispense with the attendance of the petitioner before the trial court.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of dispensing with the attendance of the petitioner before the trial court, provided she is represented by a counsel before the trial court on every date of hearing and shall appear before the trial court whenever her presence is required during the course of trial. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. S.MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /ITRUE COPY'/ CTION OFFICER To, 1 The X Mditional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Secunderabad, Hyderabad District

2. The Station House Officer, Marredpally Police Station, M:tredpally, Hyderabad District

3. One CC to SRI AMERA PASHA Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State o''-elangana at Hyderabad [OUT] I

5. Two CD Copies \A'lPSL Yy HIGH COURT DATED: 2811012025 \ \ ORDER CRLP.No.13263 ot 2025 DISPOSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION f"A €@ tr-"' --'aaaa-=:- ,1;, l'at -; ."4 Qx \ ( ) I2 \ 25 tol, il6 {:}+ *