The High Court · 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 quash the proceedings in FIR No.509/2025 dated 15.09.2025 of SHO PS Khammam ll Town against the Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 4. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the l\rlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in FIR No.509i2025 dated 15.09.2O25 of SHO PS Khammam ll Town against the Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 4 including their arrest. FTY ,/ This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing .he Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argumert, of Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Sri Jithenc rr Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respc'r dent No.1 and of Ms. L. Sowmya. Advocate for the Respondent No.2. CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 13515 OF 2025 Between

1. Kurapati Koti Reddy, S/o.Late Sambi Reddy, Aged z cout 46 years, Occ. Business, R/o H No. B-3-'167lD/17 , Flat No 30'1 , Sha r I Residency, Kalyan Nagar Phase-1. Balanagar. K.V.Ranga Reddy, Telanger a - 500018.

2. Pasi Prasanth, S/o. Damodhar, Age 35 years, Orrr Private Employee, R/o. Su1athanagar of Bhadradri Kothagudem

3. Syam Sundar Reddy, S/o.Bali Reddy, Age 50 y: rrs, Occ Business, R/o.Vepalagadda, Sujathanagar of Bhadradri Kothaguoe n

4. Sekhar Service, @ Ri Chintalpudi Rajashekar, S/o.Ramulu, Age ( C years, Occ. Social o.Sujathanagar of Bhadrad ri Kothagudem.

5. P Nageswara Rao @ Pureddi Nageshara Rao, S/o F.i mulu, Age 45 years, Occ-Private Employee, R/o-Vepalagadda, Sujathzrr agar of Bhadradri Kothagudem AND '1 . The State of Telangana, through SHO PS Khammam ll Prosecutor High Court for the State of Teiangana. - own, Rep by Public ...Petitione'/Accused No. 5 to 9

2. Pulipati Venkaiah. S/o.Laxmaiah, Age 76 years, Occ.Ri:j red Employee. R/o.H.No.15-5-1281402, A Block, 4th Floor, 402, Near fJr w y,. on ,rn ot College, Chaitanya Nagar, Bypass Road, Khammam. ...Res: > n de nUCom plaina nt ..Respondent'I efacto Complainant Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that tn the rircumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in FIR No.509/2025 daterr 15.09.2025 of SHO PS Khammam llTown against the Petitioners/Accused No.5 ! 9. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in th<r :ircumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in FIR No.509/2A2i dated'15.09.2025 of SHO PS Khammam ll Town against the Petitioners/Accusr:r No.5 to g including their arrest. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitron and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of [\Is. L. Sowmya, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER I I I i I I I I THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DE\ I EADA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.13505 AND 13 515 ( F 2025 COMMON ORDER Seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No 09 of 2O2S on the file of Khammam ll Town Poltce Statron. Khzrr rmam District, registered for the offences under Sections 85 and i { 1 (3) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 (for short, trNS'), accused Nos.3 and 4 filed Crl.P.No.13505 of 2025 and accusec ,,los.5 to 9 filed Crl.P No.13515 of2025.

2. Heard Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned cc lnsel for the petitioners, Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned l,r ditional public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State and Ms. L. S,t vmya, learned counsel for respondent No.2 3 The case of the de facto complainant is that li; daughter got married to accused No.'l in the year'l 996. After eigh years of their marriage, they went to U.S.A. Thereafter, accused Nr> 1 got addicted to bad vices and started harassing his daughter. - he petitioners herein, who are the family members and relatives of ac ;used No.1, in collusion with accused No.1 used to harass his daugh r r and also her \\1 I I I I 2 ETD.J Crl.P \o 1i505 of202i & batch maternal family members and further, threatened to kill them His further case is that his son-in-lalv (accused No 1) is trying to occupy the properties of his daughter and further, trespassed into the properties of his daughter. His further case is that the petitioners along with accused No.1 are threatening him and his daughter with dire consequences.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the marriage between accused No.1 and the daughter of de facto complainant was performed 30 years ago and they were residing at U.S A. He further submitted that the petitioners herein were residing in lndia and the petitioners never resided together with accused No- 1 and his wife. Thus, at no point of time the petitioners can be alleged to have harassed the daughter of the de facio complainant. Therefore, the allegations under Section 85 of BNS do not get attracted at all against the petitioners.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations are not only under Section 85 of BNS' but there are several other allegations against the petitioners, which point out the offences under Sections 85 and 351(3) of BNS. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petitions 'rir+"-#-.@.=.q / ..." J ETD,J crl l' o 135()5 0f202,< & barch

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted .l at appropriate orders be passed in the Criminal Petitions

7. Perused the record.

8. The contents of the complaint point out sper; ic allegations against the petitioners herein for the offences under S t ctions 85 and 351(3) of BNS The investigation is still in progress T- th is yet to be unravelled. Therefore, it is not proper to interfere with tr : investigation at this stage. Since the punishment for the offences rlleged is less than seven years of imprisonment, it is deemed appropr ate to dispose of the Criminal Petitions by directing the police to follovi the procedure laid down under Section 35(3) of BNSS L Accordingly, the Criminal Petitions are disposed r f directing the petitioners to appear before the lnvestigating Officer c: rcerned on or before 25.11.2025 between 11:00 AIr/ and 5.00 Ptr/, :r rd in turn, the lnvestigating Officer is directed to follow the procecl re laid down under Section 35(3) of BNSS and the guidelines fort ulated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bih;rr lscrupulously and the petitioners are also directed to co-ope r rte with the ' (2014) 8 scc 273 4 :TD,J Crl I'}No 11505 of2025 & batch lnvestigating Officer and to furnish the requisite information and documents as and when required by him lVliscellaneous applicatrons, if any, pending shall stand closed //TRUE COPYII SD/- P.PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER To 1 2 3

4. 5. 6. DL/PS The lAdditional Judicial First Class [/agistrate at Khammam The Station House Officer, Police Station Khammam ll Town. Khammam District. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, State of Telangana, High Court Buildings, at Hyderabad (OUT) One CC to Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, Advocate IOPUCI One CC to Ms. L. Sowmya, Advocate TOPUCI Two CD Copies L N/ i I I I I I I i I I I I i I I \ HIGH COURT DATED:0411112025 '1'::-:---' ,<4,.- -_ ;t\: // <:-). ',-)..ti. [4 t:C 2[m i! \\ iD4 r tl:-fr COMMON ORDER CRIMINAL PETITION Nos: 13505 AND 13515 OF 2025 CRIMINAL PETITIONS ARE DISPOSED OF c{ It 15 \ ?