The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana,, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad. Manne Mohan Raju,, S/o Late Kotaiah, Age. 41 years, Occ. Asst. Executive Engineer, R/o H.No. 8-7 -921N78, Anupama Nagar Colony, L.B Nagar, R.R. District ...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 Charge Sheet in CC No. 3496 ot 2020, in Crime No. 466 of 202O, daled 01.08.2020, on the file of the learned Principal JCJ cum lVth Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Uppal, L.B. Nagar, registered at Medipally Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, against the Petitioners/A1 to 46, for the alleged offences under Section 363 of the lndian Penal Code, 1860 . l.A. NO: 1OF 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 including the appearance of the Petitioners/A1-6 in CC.No.3496 ot 2020 in crime no.466 of 2020, on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge Cum lVth Judicial lVlagistrate of First class, Uppal at L.B.Nagar pending disposal of the present quash petition . This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the lVlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argun)ents of Sri T.S.V PRASAD NAIK ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Additionz I Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none for the Respc,ndent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.13480 ot 2025 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 6 seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.3496 of 2020 on the file of lll Metropolitan l\Iagistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, for the offence under Section 363 IPC

2. Heard Sri T.S.V. Prasad Naik, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veerarnalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No 1-State

3. Learned counsel for the petitionei's has submitted that the petitioners herein are 41 to 46 and that they are facing false allegations and that the offence of krdnap does not get attracted even according to the allegations raised in the complaint. He further submitted that A7 in the present case has been granted the relief of dispensing with the attendance before the trial court and that the similar orders may be passed against the petitroners herein also. He further submitted that the matter is purely of civil nature and that the . -, -- -! - crminar proceedings cannot be initiated in civir m;ltters according to the guidelines laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lali. EfD,J Crt.P No 134AO ot ZA25

4. Learned Additional public prosecutor has opposed the petition, submitting that A7 is a Tahsirdar and the said orders were passed by the learned single Judge without going into the merits of the case and has observed that A7 being a lady arnd a Government employee, the said relief was granted and that the same analogy cannot be applied to the petitioners herein and that A1 to 46 have confessed to have committed the offence, during the course of investigation and hence no rerief can be granted to the petitioners. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record 6 The recitals of charge sheet point out that on 01.08.2020 the petitioners and other accused went to Boduppa at 19 30 hours and as per lhe information of Ag, they were waiting near Sneha chicken center and in the meantime, LW.2 came c,n his car and the accused stopped the car of LW.2 and asked for returrr of the amount, alleged to have been paid by them. when LW.2 ;rnswered that he paid some money to A7, the petitioners_A1 to 46 fo-cibly taken LW 2 I \ 1992 Supp (1)SCC 33S -1 Crl P No.lrlaoot 2025 in the Ertiga Car bearing No.TS 03 UB 4150 along with them in the same car. Thus, the allegations point out printa faae offence against the petitioners herein under Section 363 IPC Further, it is revealed that LW.3 is an eye witness to the incident. Thus, the veracity of the witnesses and the truth or otherwise of the allegations can be culled after a full-fledged trial. Hence, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. However, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the petition by dispensing with the attendance of the petitioners herein before the trial court.

7. ln the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of dispensing with the attendance of the petitioners before the trial court, provided they are represented by a counsel before the trial cou( on every date of hearing and they shall appear before the triai court as and when their presence is required during the course of trial Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed SD/.N.CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER I To,

1. The Princiipal JCJ cum lvth Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Uppal, L.B.Nagar.

2. The Station House Officer, lv'ledipally Police Station, Rachakonda district. 3. One CC to SRl. T.S.V PRASAD NAIK Advocate [OPUC] 4 Two CCs to the ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUIOR, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies t?^t tiE S 14 ti01J tr5 I (:- o ) a. !. ..i : HIGH COURT DATED:0411112025 ORDER CRLP.No.13480 ot 2025 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION. \\