The High Court · 2025

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

2. [vlr. Ir,4ohammed Mahaboob, S/o. Md. Khasim, aged about 32 years, Occ. Driver, Rl./o. H. No. 20- 263/'1, Jeedimetla, Hyderabad. RESPONDENT No.1/COMPLAINANT ...RESPONDENT No.2/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 C. C. No. 1794 of 2023 on the file of Hon'ble lll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, against the Petitioner/Accused No. 2 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the [t/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including the appearance of the Petitioner/Accused No. 2 in C. C. No. 1794 of 2023 on the file of Hon'ble lll Additional Chief lvletropolitan It/agistrate at Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case a rd in the interest of justice. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing lhe lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argL rlents of Sri MEER AKBARALlHASHIMl,AdvocateforthePetitionerandrllSriJithenderRao veeramaltu, the Additional Publlc Prosecutor for the State ol l-elangana on behalf of the Respondent No 1. and None appeared for Respondert ro 2 The Court made the following: ORDER - THE HONOURABLE SMT,JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.13496 ot 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No 2 seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.1794 of 2023 on the file of lll Additional Chief tVletropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 read with 34 IPC

2. Heard Sri M.A. Ashwaq, learned counsel for the petittoner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No. 1-State

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is facing false allegations that she, along with the other accused, has promised the de facto complainant and others to get the two-bedroom houses allotted by the .government and that they have taken money from them. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that she has never met lhe de facto complainant or any other victim and has never collected any amount from them. He further submitted that there is huge delay in lodging the complaint. The offences alleged to have been committed in 2019, while the complaint is filed in 2023 and the reason for the delay is not explained. He further submitted that the \ .-- \'- C4.P No tJr'g6 ot 2o), charge sheet ts filed in a mechanical way witho t considering the said aspects and without any evidence corected b1' rhe porice to hord the offence against the petitioner that she has takerr amount from the de facto complainant When no case is made cut against the petltioner, continuation of proceedings against he r would be an abuse of process of law and hence, prayec to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

4. Learned Additional public prosecutor has submitted that the prosecution could record the statements of witrrcsses, who are the victims, which disclosed that they have paid amor_rnts to the petitloner and accused No. 1 as they promised hat they can influence the government authorities in getting two-b:rlroom houses allotted to the them. The pelitioner along with accLsed No. j has introduced the other accused to the victims, who in .urn promised allotment of two-bedroom houses. Thus the prima fa,^.e case exists against the petitioner herein and therefore, he prayed lrt dismiss the petition

5. Perused the record

6. The contents of the complalnt point out that tre petitioner herein is the daughter of one Ga|b Bee, who is accu:;r:rd No.1 and .,7 - I I , EfD J ctl.P. No 1Jt96 0l 2025 that both of them got introduced themselves to be the employees in the Collector Office, Nampally, and they have given their address to lhe de facto complainant and asked to meet them at their residence and when the de faclo complainant and his relatives approached them, they introduced the other accused i.e. accused Nos.3 to 5 stating that they are the officers in the Collector Office and that they would sanction the double bedroom houses and in order to get the sanction, they have to pay the processing fee and commission to the said officers. Accordingly the de facfo complainant and the other victims alleged to have paid Rs.2,00,0001 each to them Thus, the allegations prima facie point out the offences under Sections 406 and 420 read with 34 IPC against the petitioner herein. The statements of witnesses also disclosed the said offences. The truth or otherwise in the allegations and the veracity of the witnesses can be tested during the course of trial. HenQe, 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 \ :l .- x" *-1 ,\- EIO,J ctt P No 13r'96 0t 2025 of hearing and shall appear before the trial cc urt whenever her presence is required during the course of trial. lVliscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shzrl stand closed //TRUE COPY// Sd/. B. REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER To 'l . The lll Additional Chief Metropolitan lvlagistrate at Namr rlly, Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Banjarahills police Station, il ,,derabad 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High court for the stirjrl of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to SRl. MEER AKBAR ALt HASHM|, Advocate CpUCI 5. Two CD Copies Rm/pr b, -fL HIGH COURT DATED:0311112025 ( E ,) )/,<1 ,.!.n 'it ) 2s \t$\ N'6 c) )i arF\i: SPAl ORDER CRLP.No.13496 of 2025 DISPOS!NG OF THE CRL.PETITION \\$r {