The High Court · 2025

1 THE STATE OF TELANGANA, Through Police Station Basanthnagar, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana. 2 ...Respondent No.1 /Complainant KARUGANTI MALLIKARJUNA PRASAD, S/o. K V Srinivas, 57 years, Occ Executive Engineer, lrrigation Department, R/o. Kataram flr' and M), Bhupalapalli District. ...Respondent No.2/Defacto 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 the Criminal proceedings initiated against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 in C.C. No.26 of 2023 (old C C. No.675 of 2017) on the file of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Excise Cases At Hyderabad. l.A. NO: 1OF 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 appearance of the Petitioner/Accused No.1 in C.C. No.26 of 2O23 (old C.C. No.675 of 2017) on the file of Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Excise Cases At Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusinrl the [\/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argunt, nts of Sri Dharmesh D.K.Jarswal, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosr cutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 The Court made the following: ORDER }1W/'r I I I i i i I I ! THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTT CRIMINAL PETITIO N No.15459 OF 2o24 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against petitioner/ accu sed No' 1 ir-t C.C. No.26 of 2023 (OId C.C. No.675 of 2Ol7\ on the file of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Excise Cases at Hl,derabad.

2. On the basis of a complaint dated 23 08 2017 filed b1 respondent No.2 at 13:30 hours, an FIR came to be registered on 23.O8.2O17 uide FIR No' 162 ot 20l7 on the file of Police Station Basanthnagar, lor offences punishable under Sections 147, 353, 427 read with Section 149 of lncliart [)enal C<-rdc, i360 (for short 'lPC') \erusccl ]lc 1 i:; one Sridhar Babu and around 12 others are co-accused for the said offences. ,) The gist of the complaint and the FIR is that while complainant was discharging his duties as Executive Engineer, Division No'2, Kataram, and conducting 2 JAK,.I CRLP I i 1.t9 2024 proceedings ol the public hearing on Kaleslt [,roject, ^.ararn n'hen people $ere expressing their views at t te proceccLngs in Raghavapuram Reddy Function Hall. pec , apalli, around 3OO membcrs raised slogans against Chi(. Minister ancl threu' charrs and disturbed the procecdinSl . The District Collcctor ar-r d the Environmental Engineer requested the accused persons to pacify themselves and i sked them to share the:ir vierv(s) on- the dais. Inspite of uhich, all the accused intervened in the proceedings and caused disturbance in discharging the duties cl Government emplo_vees in respect of the project. 4 A charge sheet came to be ftled befort the Judicial First Class Magistrate, peddapalli, under ! ections 147, 146 427 read q ith Sectron ,l49 ol- IpC. i, l i: 1

5. It is brought to the notice of this Cou: bv a memo bearing USR No.12O26O of 2O2S that the tourt of thc Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for l)xcise Cases uide judgmenr dated 17.05.2025 in C.C.N,I 26 of 2023 acquitted accused No.1/petitioner herein and other J JAK, J CRLP l5-159 2024 accused under Section 248(ll Cr.P.C. The following is the operative portion of the judgment "9. PW 1 to PW6 turned hostile to prosecution

10. PW7 stated that on 23-08-2017 he received trx. PI from PW1 and registered a case and issued FIR to all concerncd. He examined ancl recorded the statements of PW 1 to PW5 q,hcr stated to him as in Ex.P2 to Ex.P6. Hc conducted scene of oflence panchanama in thc prescnce of PW6 and LW6/ Madhuraiah. Hc lrled Alteration Memo on 23-O8-2O17 b1' altering the section from 353 IPC to 186 tPC. He issued noticc to the accused under the provisions of 41-A Cr.P.C. and laid charge sheet on completion of investigation. 1 1. In the cross examination he admitted that the meeting was organized by Pollution'Control Board but he did not examined the organizers of that Board and did not collected the copy of thc pcrmission granted for conducling thc above said meeting. It was suggested to hirn that as no meeting rr,.as conducted as alleged b1 hirn. he coukl nol coltect zrnv sttch pt'r-missi.,- for which he denied. He also admitted that hc did not examined either the District Collector or Environmental Engineer whose names were referred in the Ex.Pl. It was suggested to him that PWl to PW5 did not stated to him as in trx.P2 to Ex.P6 and he did not investigated thc case but did table investigation without visiting the scene of offence, for which he denied. It was suggcsted to him that a false case was foisted against the accused due to political ( u 4 ]AK, J aRl.P l5rl:q 2024 environment u,hicl'r u.as prevalcnt al t )at time :rrtd deposing falsehood, for which hc rl 'nied.

12. It rs thc crontcrltion ol the pros<:<:Lr ion that on 23-08 2() l7 accusecl u'ho arc the :r ir,isrs ol Congrcss Part_r. lbrmed themselves; n[o an 'tr:ll.'. 1: ll .:s.r:':tl)l\ .rnd Cntere(l ,.") th,' rneeting hall at Raghavapur q,hcre i rneeting u,zrs going on, on the topic of Environ I ent and I)ollution ;rbout Kalesh\ raram ProjecL. \ccr:sed rlisturbed the mccting bv lhrorving tl, charrs. Accuseci along ,,r'ith 3OO membcr' raised slogans against thc Chief Minister a l thrcu, thc chairs and disturbcd the me<:ti rg. The l)istrict Collector and EnvironmentaI I ngineer requested them, percified them and as < rrl them to share their vieu,s by coming on to I rr: Dias. As accused disturbed the Go', r nment F)mployees in discharging their ofhcii r duties, this case was registered against them. I 3. 'I'o prove thc a bove said contentio - ; of the prosecution it examined as many lr se\/en tvitnesses out o[ which PW I to PWtr turned h()stile to prosccution. The cvidcncc rr m:rined on record is PW7. t lc aclmitted that Ir, did not collcctecl ar)) copy ol the order g r L:n for conducting the above referred rrec tg. He admitted that personnel pcrtaining Lo i tiluLion Control Board organizcd the meeting but he did not examined those organizers. ris Lhe contention of thc prosecution [hal ]istrict Collector and Environmental Engin< t r \{rere also present at that meeting and tried t , pacify the accused. But surprisingly neither - rllector nor Dnvironmental Engineer were exa r r lled by the Investigating Agency. No docum'tt was filed bv PW7 to shov.r that mectr g was 5 JAK. J CRLP 154 59 20ll orgar,ized by Pollution Control Board at Reddy Function Hall, Raghavapur. Absolutely there is no support to lhe evidence of PW7 as it remained on record, without any sort o[ corrobora tion.

14. It is the alleeation o[ prosecution thar accused raised slogans against the then Chief Mrnister and threw chairs at the meeting which \\.as conducted for public hearing on Kalcshr.r'aram Projcct. PW7 is not the eye ri'itness to the incident but he only investigated the case. The persons who were shown as eyc u.itnesses to the incident turned hostile to prosecution. Hence after appreciating the evidence available on record, and after going through the statements of the witnesses and thcir evidence, wl-rich was recorded by the court, it u,as felt that the evidence lead by prosecution is not sufficient to prove the guitt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts. Hcnce accused were lound not guiit, hence accused vgerc acquitted.

15. In the result, Accused No.1 to 13 were founcl NOT GUILTY for the offence punishable irr:1,'r' Sc'.ii,n f .i7, 186, 127 rlw 1.+9 lPC. I-lence Accused rvere acquitted under section 248(1) CrP.C. The bail bonds of the accused stood cancelled and the sureties will be discharged after the lapse of appeal time. As there is no property involved in this case, no separate property order was passed.'

6. Perused the judgment in C.C.No.26 of 2023, by judgment dated 17.05.2025, accused Nos. I to 13 have \ 6 .IA K, J cRt P t-s4i0 t0:1 been held "NOT GUILTY". Petitioner is ac<: rsed No.I in C.C.No.26 ol 2023, u,ho is held "NOT GUILTY" 7 . [n vrerv of the judgmcnt in C.C.N o.26 ol 2023 passcd by a Competent Court, this Court is of the r ieu, that this Criminal Petition bc closcd

8. For reasons aforesaid, the Criminal Pr _ition stands clo sed. Misccilaneous applications pending. i anr,, shall stand ciosed //TRUE COPY// SD/- Srn:. B.G. VYJAYANTHT ASS; STANT REGISTRAR' l- t \l- \ SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 J 4 5 The Special Judicial First CIass lr,lagist;ate ior- f r",5 O: ;es, I-lyderabad. The Station House officer, Basanth Nagar police Statior peddapalli District. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the jtate of Telangana, Hyderabad [OUT] One CC to Sri. Dharmesh D.K Jaiswal Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies. GAK/ABK HIGH COURT DATED:0311112025 ORDER CRLP.No.15459 ot 2024 tor. iiS S o t * 3lJ4il 2026 : \TC * THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS CLOSED. q \