The High Court · 2025

1 The State of Telangana,, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, High Court, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT

2. Vadithya Shekar Naik, S/o Laxman, Aged 42 yrs., Occ: Agrl., R/o Thirumalagiri Bala Nagar, now residing at H.No.1-9, Teacher Colony Shad Nagar, Ranga Reddy District ... RESPONDENT'DEFACTO COMPLAI NANT Petition under Section 5X3 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 Proceedings in S.C. SPL No. 15 of 2025, on the file of Special Judge for Trial of Cases Under SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989 - cum - ll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahaboob Nagar District for an offence under Sections 427,447, 5A4 rlw.34 IPC and Section 3 (2) (va) of SC ST (POA) Act, 2015 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 grant STAY all further proceedings in S.C. SPL. No. 15 of 2025, on the file of Special Judge for Trial of Cases Under SCs and STs (POA) Ac-t, 1989 - cum- ll Additionat District and Sessions Judge. Mahaboob Nagar District for an offence under Sections 447 , 427, 504 r/w. 34 IPC and Section 3 (2) (va) of SC ST (POA) Act, 2015. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K Sai Babu ,Advocate for the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI l.ThisCriminalPetitionisft{edunderSection52SofBharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking the Court to quash Nos.1 to 3 in the proceedings against the petitionersr/accused S.C.Spl.No.15 ot 2O25, on the file of the leamed Special Judge for TrialofCasesunderScheduledCastesandScheduledTribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 <um- ll Additional District and SessionsJudge,MahaboobnagarDistrict,registeredfortheoffences punishable under Sections 427, 447 and 504 read with 34 of IPC and Section 3(2[va) of SCs & STs (POA) Act' 2015'

2. Heard Sd K.Saibabu, leamed counsel for the Nos.1 to 3 as well as Sri Jitender Rao Veeramalla, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1- State.

3.Leamedpetitioners,counselsubmitsthatthecornplaintitser does not disclose any specific overt acts against the petitioners herein and that there are no particulars with regard to the abuses hurled against the defacto complainant, which acrused has abused 2 ot.P.No.r3932_2025 (' EtD) is also not mentioned in the complaint and even if that is believed to be tue, the presence of any witnesses to the incident is also not mentioned in the complaint. Therefore, the ingredients of the alleged offences do not get attracted against the petitioners in this case. Hence prayed to quash the proceedingrs against the petitioners. 4. The leamed Additionat public has submifted that the prosecution could examine the statements of eye witnesses which need to be tested during the cource of trial. He further submitted that there are specific altegations in the complaint against the petitioners herein that they have trespassed into the land of the de facto complainant and have demolished he boundary stones. He therefore prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record. The contents of the complairit point out the offences under Section s 421, 441 and SO4 read with 34 of lpC and Section 3(2[va) of SCs & STs (pOA), Acr, 2O1S alleged against the petitioners. LW3 is an eye witness whose name is also figured in the eomplaint stating that the said person along with one Pathlavath Laxman has rescued the de facto complainant when the petitioners herein have attacked the de factocomplainant. Thus, the allegations prima facie point out the offences alleged against the \ \ : I I I i i i i I I I I 3 EID) Ol.P,tb-73932-2lri25 petitioners herein. The veracity of the witnesses and the truth or otherwise in the allegations shall be culled out after full-fledged trial.

6. A perusal of the record further reveals that aeused Nos,1 to 3 were called absent before the Trial Court on 17.10.2O25 and the \ Trial Court has ordered for appearance of all the accused and for fumishing sureties conditionally and posted the matter to

18.11,2025. lt is rnade clear that the petitioners,shall abide by the directions of the Trial Court and shail be present before the Trial Court whenever their appearance is required specffically and shall cooperate with the Trial Court in completing the proceedings during the course of trial.

7. ln view of the foregoing discussion and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is deemed appr:opriate to dispose of the Criminal Petition by dispensing with the attendance of the petitioners before the Trial Court.

8. Hence, the Criminal Petition is disposed of dispensing with the presenoe of the petitionersi/accused Nos.1 to 3 before the Trial Court provided that the petitioners are represented through an Advocate on every date of hearing and that they shall be present before the 4 EfoJ Crt.P,No.73932_2025 { Triat Court whenever their presence is specffically required during the course of trial.

9. / Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shar stand cro*d. .. ,/TRUE C,OPYII SD'. ASSISTANT C, DEEPIKA REGISTRAR e / SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The special Judge for Trial of cases Under scs and STs (poA) Act, 1,9gt) - cum - llAdditional District and sessions Judge, Mahaboob Nagar District. '7

2. The station House officer, Balanagar police Station, Batanagar, Mahaboob

3. Two ccs to the Public Prosecutor, High court of relangana; Hyderabad Nagar District. (our)

4. One CC to Sri. K Sai Babu, Advocate tOpUCI 5. Two CD Copies M/ \ HIGTI COURT DATED:2811012025 ORDER CRLP.No.13932 ot 2025 { HE SIA 0 I JAN 2026 -\ C !) t9 Y a '* CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISPOSED OF \)/ %