The High Court · 2025

State of Telangana., through S.HO. yalal, Vikarabad Dist. rep. by public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. 9ri, S. Suresh, , S/o. Laxman, Aged 29 years, Occ. police Constable, p.S. Yalal, Rt/o. Saipur Village, Tandur Mandal. Vikarabad District. ...RESPONDENT/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 criminat proceedings initiated igainst fh; Petitioner/Accused No.14 in c.c. No. 42 ot 2o2o on the fite of First J-udicial First class Magistrate at randur of Vikarabad District (out of arising crime No. 69 of 2019, dt. 1510412019 on the fite of potice station yatal, vikarabid district) for the offences under Sec. 332 rlw.34 IPC and be pleased l.A. NO: 2 OF 2024 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 all further proceedings including personal appelrance of the Petitioner/Accused No.'14 in c.c. No. 42 of 2o2o on the file of First Judicial First class Magistrate at randur of vikarabad District (out of arising crime No. 69 of 2019, dt. 1510412019 on the fite of potice station yatal, vikarab,d district pending disposal of the Quash Proceedings This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing t re l\4emorandum of > Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argumor ts of Sri lvl PARMA REDDY,Advocate for lhe Petitioner and Sri lvl.Ramachanrlr: reddy Addl Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No1. and nore appear for .the Respondent No2 The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.14986 OF 2024 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the pelitioner/accused No.'14 in C.C.No.42 of 2020, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Tandur of Vikarabad District, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 332 read with 34 of the lndian Penal Code,

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 14.04.2019, lhe complainant performed his duty at Sri Ramaswamy Temple, Juntupally Village, Yalal Mandal, along with other Police constables. As a part of his duty, when the complainant tried to control the devotees, who are pulling the Chariot front and back side, some devotees misbehaved with the complainant by holding his uniform collar, beat him with hands and bite his left ear. Hence, the complainant-respondent No.2 filed a complaint in Cr.No.69 of 2019 before the Yalal Police and after completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed vide C.C.No.42 of 2020 before learned Judicial First Clasd Magistrate at Tandur of Vikarabad District. 3 Heard Sri M.Parma Reddy, Iearned counsel for the petitioner- accused No.14 and Sri l\I.Ramachandra Reddy, Iearned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State, Though the notice sent to the respondent No 2, the respondent No.2 has refused to receive the same and there is no representation on beharf of respondent N..2 either in person or through counser, as such, this court after recording r.ris absence proceeded to dispose of the present matter on merits. perused the ret;r,rd. 4 Learned counser for the petitioner-accusec \o..14 submitted that the nredicar certificate issued by LW.7 crearry stated :hat the injuries are simpre in nature. He further submitted that there are r. specific aregations against the petitioner-accused No. 14 except statinr; that the devotees misbehaved with LW. 1 by hording his uniform coilar anc reat him with hands, due to which he received brood injuries. rt is subrritted that this court quashed the criminar proceedings against the accuserc Nos 1 and 2 vide order dated 21 -09.2024 passed in criminar petition No.1 271 of 2o2o and the present petitioner is arso standing on the same footinr] as that of accused Nos.'l and 2 and prayed for extend the same benefit to tr: petitioner-accused No.14. Hence, he prayed to allow the Criminal petition

5. On the other hand, the learned Additionill public prosecutor contended that there are specific ailegations against t * petrtioner. Ail the allegations reveiled against the petitioner are subject rratter of triar, and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceecli rgs at this staoe. Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. ln order to attract the offence under Section 332 of lpC, there shall be arregations of voruntariry causing hurt to a pubril servant whire they are performing their official duty, or to prevent them from J :ing their duty. On a careful scrutiny of the entire charge sheet, there is no specific averment or' allegation showing the complicity of the petitioner_accused No. 14. Except alleging that the accused Nos.1 to 16 misbehaved with the respondent No.2 by caught holding his uniform collar and beat him with hands bite his left ear, there is no specific allegation against the petitioner-accused No.14 as to his role in the offence. charge sheet shows that the police have recorded the confessional statements of some accused persons but there is no confessional statement of the petitioner-accused No.14. lt appears that the petitioner-accused No.14 was implicated by way of confessional statements of other accused.

7. At this stage, it is relevant to note the observations made by the Apex court in State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajanlall, whereunder the following categories were illustrated, wherein the extraordinary power under Arlicle 226 of the constitution of lndia or the inherent powers under Section 482 cr.P.c. can be exercised by the High court to prevent the abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The sald categories are extracted as under: "1 2 Where the allegations made in the First lnformation Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. Where the allegations in the First lnformation Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence-, '1992 srpp (1) sCC 335 .F.!r 3 4 E 6 7 justifying an investigation by police offi ;ers under Section 156 (1) of the Code exce;t under an order of a Magistrate within the 5 urview of Section 155 (2) of the Code. Where the uncontroverted allegation s made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the sante do not disclose the commission of any oflence and make out a case against the accused. Where, the allegations in the F Fl do not constitute a cognizable offence but co.r,;titute only a non-cognizable offence, no inves igation is permitted by a police officer without ar order of a I\rlagistrate as contemplated under I)t,ction 155 (2) of the Code. Where the allegations made in t.r: FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherenfly improbable on the basis of which nc prudent person can ever reach a just conclusic n that there is sufficient ground for proceeding a lainst the accused. Where there is an express legal bar t:rrgrafted in any of the provisions of the Cod: or the concerned Act (under which a crinrinal proceeding is instituted) to the insiilution and continuance of the proceedings anC or where there is a specific provision in the Ccde or the concerned Act, providing efficacious r,)dress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. Where a criminal proceeding is rranifesily attended with mala fide and/or n here the proceeding is maliciously instituterl with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengear)(:e on the accused and with a view to spite lrin due to private and personal grudge." B Therefore, in view of the law laid down b,l the Apex Court in Bhajanlal (supra) vide point No.3, this court is of the co-r;idered opinion that even if the trial is conducted, no purpose wourd be served as there are no specific allegations against the petitioner_accused No..l4. I Accordingly, the criminar petition is ailowed and the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.14 in c.c.No.42 of 2o2o on the file of learned Judicial First class tVlagistrate at randur of vikarabad District, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. \ //TRUE COPY// SD/. K. BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR o SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The First Judicial First Class Magistrate at Tandur of Vikarabad D istrict

2. The Station House Officer, police Station yalal, Vikarabad district 3. One CC to SRt. M PARMA REDDy Advocate [OpUC] 4. Two CC to SRt. pUBLtC PROSECUTOR Advocate [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies W HlGH COURT DATED:0310912025 1{ L ,:125 l- ,7 :i ORDER C RLP.No.14986 ot 2024 GRLP !S ALLOWED $) 1b