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 all further proceedings in C.C. No. 512 of 2022 on the file of XI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendrangar, in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 1OF 2024 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P .C 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 including the appearance of the petitioner in C.C No 512 ot 2022 on the file of Xl Additional Judieial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendrangar, pending disposal of the above Crrminal petition. Thrs Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. T. Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, Learned Senior Counsel representing Sri T.S. Anirudh Reddy, Advoeate for the Petitioner and Sri M. Ramaehandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 , and none appears for Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI S I IIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.14387 ot 20 2! ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section | 2.8 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (previously Sectior 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) by the petitioner-accusec No.i seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.512 of t022 pending on the file of the learned Xl Additional Judicial tVlagistrzrl : of First class, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar (for short ,trial ( ourt,), registered for the offence under Section g(BX1Xb) of the Explosive Act, 1884.

2. Heard Mr. T.Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learne,l Senior Counsel representing tr/lr. T.Anirudh Reddy, learned counsel for I re petitioner and Mr. lV.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional F r blic prosecutor appearing for the respondents-State. perused the recorj 3 The brief factual matrix that emanate from the -ecord are that, upon receiving credible information, the Sub-lnspe :tor of police, Rajendranagar Police Station, proceeded to plot No.2,l ) Manasa Hills, Rajendranagar i.e., the subject premises, where a r r rl building was under construction. Upon inspection, it was found that a;cused Nos.4 to 8 were drilling holes to the large boulders using compres;or vehicles and blasting stones with explosive materials, in violation of t e rules. These 2 activities were carried out without taking any safety precautions and without holding any valid license. The petitioner-accused No.1 is the owner of the subject premises.

4. lt is contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has entered into an agreement, dated 02.11.2017 with accused No.2, with a specific condition that the excavation has to be done manually using breaker and chiseling only. Hence, the petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged using of blasting material. The petitioner was not present at the subject premises at the time of alleged incident and he was implicated in the case merely basing on the confession of co-accused. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that all the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of trial, and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the petiticn

6. Upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner is the owner of the subject premises. The petitioner entered into an agreement with accused No.2 on 02.11.2017 in respect of the subject premises for excavation of soil and rock, wherein, there is a specific condition that the \ \ . j:.i."-l+f 3 excavation has to be carried out manually using bretrl er and chiseling only. It is to be noted that the petitioner was not prese nt at the subject premises at the time of alleged incident, and no incrir rinating material was recovered from his possession. However, solel, basing on the confession statement made before the Police by accus No.3 i.e., the =d Distributor, which is inadmissible in the eye of law, tl e petitioner was arrayed as accused No.'1 in the crime. No specific role rvas attributed to the petitioner either in the complaint or charge sheet to lemonstrate how he possessed, used, sold or transported any explosive materials, other than stating that he is the owner of the subject premis:;. Therefore, the essential ingredients of the offence alleged against the retitioner are not made out, and the proceedings against him are liable lc re quashed

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowec quashing the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.1 in C.l No.512 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned Xl Additional Judicial i\ agistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall s and closed //TRUE COPY// SDI.) PONNA KRISHNA ASS I }TANT REGISTRAR SEC IION OFFICER To,

1. The Xl Additional Judicial District at Rajend rangar, Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy

2. The Station House Officer, Rajendra Nagar, police Statio r Cyberabad District.

3. One CC to Sri T.S. Anirudh Reddy, Advocate [OpUC] -Z

4. Two CCs to public prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana (our)

5. Two CD Copies BJLBIABK I j HIGH COURT DATED:13/08/2025 ) ,} ORDER CRLP.No.14387 o1 2024 CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED /m \-y' .4.:.,., ,4.<" [5 ?tr, t 1 I r')\. 'i, i., \, o- \-.-

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 all further proceedings in C.C. No. 512 of 2022 on the file of XI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendrangar, in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 1OF 2024 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P .C 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 including the appearance of the petitioner in C.C No 512 ot 2022 on the file of Xl Additional Judieial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendrangar, pending disposal of the above Crrminal petition. Thrs Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. T. Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, Learned Senior Counsel representing Sri T.S. Anirudh Reddy, Advoeate for the Petitioner and Sri M. Ramaehandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 , and none appears for Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI S I IIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.14387 ot 20 2! ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section | 2.8 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (previously Sectior 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) by the petitioner-accusec No.i seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.512 of t022 pending on the file of the learned Xl Additional Judicial tVlagistrzrl : of First class, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar (for short ,trial ( ourt,), registered for the offence under Section g(BX1Xb) of the Explosive Act, 1884.

2. Heard Mr. T.Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learne,l Senior Counsel representing tr/lr. T.Anirudh Reddy, learned counsel for I re petitioner and Mr. lV.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional F r blic prosecutor appearing for the respondents-State. perused the recorj 3 The brief factual matrix that emanate from the -ecord are that, upon receiving credible information, the Sub-lnspe :tor of police, Rajendranagar Police Station, proceeded to plot No.2,l ) Manasa Hills, Rajendranagar i.e., the subject premises, where a r r rl building was under construction. Upon inspection, it was found that a;cused Nos.4 to 8 were drilling holes to the large boulders using compres;or vehicles and blasting stones with explosive materials, in violation of t e rules. These 2 activities were carried out without taking any safety precautions and without holding any valid license. The petitioner-accused No.1 is the owner of the subject premises.

4. lt is contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has entered into an agreement, dated 02.11.2017 with accused No.2, with a specific condition that the excavation has to be done manually using breaker and chiseling only. Hence, the petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged using of blasting material. The petitioner was not present at the subject premises at the time of alleged incident and he was implicated in the case merely basing on the confession of co-accused. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that all the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of trial, and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the petiticn

6. Upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner is the owner of the subject premises. The petitioner entered into an agreement with accused No.2 on 02.11.2017 in respect of the subject premises for excavation of soil and rock, wherein, there is a specific condition that the \ \ . j:.i."-l+f 3 excavation has to be carried out manually using bretrl er and chiseling only. It is to be noted that the petitioner was not prese nt at the subject premises at the time of alleged incident, and no incrir rinating material was recovered from his possession. However, solel, basing on the confession statement made before the Police by accus No.3 i.e., the =d Distributor, which is inadmissible in the eye of law, tl e petitioner was arrayed as accused No.'1 in the crime. No specific role rvas attributed to the petitioner either in the complaint or charge sheet to lemonstrate how he possessed, used, sold or transported any explosive materials, other than stating that he is the owner of the subject premis:;. Therefore, the essential ingredients of the offence alleged against the retitioner are not made out, and the proceedings against him are liable lc re quashed

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowec quashing the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.1 in C.l No.512 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned Xl Additional Judicial i\ agistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall s and closed //TRUE COPY// SDI.) PONNA KRISHNA ASS I }TANT REGISTRAR SEC IION OFFICER To,

1. The Xl Additional Judicial District at Rajend rangar, Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy

2. The Station House Officer, Rajendra Nagar, police Statio r Cyberabad District.

3. One CC to Sri T.S. Anirudh Reddy, Advocate [OpUC] -Z

4. Two CCs to public prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana (our)

5. Two CD Copies BJLBIABK I j HIGH COURT DATED:13/08/2025 ) ,} ORDER CRLP.No.14387 o1 2024 CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED /m \-y' .4.:.,., ,4.<" [5 ?tr, t 1 I r')\. 'i, i., \, o- \-.-