The High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad

2. Smt.Gogula Anjamma, Wo.Late Anjaiah, Age. 6l years, occ:.Kirana. Business, R/o.H.No.1-5-166/4, Bhongir Town , Yadadri Bhqngir District ...RESPONDENTS/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 Charge sheet in C.C.No.10 ot 2020, daled 02-01-2020 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhongir, Yadadri Bhongir District l.A. NO: I OF 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 stay of all further proceedings including dispense with appearance of the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.10 oI 2020, daled 02-01-2020 on the file of the learned Jud.icial First Class Magistrate, Bhongir, Yadadri Bhongir District , pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri UMA DEVI NAMA, Advocate for the Petitioner and SRl. JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA' Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None Appeared or the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER 7 IN TI.IE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TTRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMI AL PETITIO N No.14930 2025 Date: 29.12.2025 Between Smt. Pagidipally Nirmala Jyothi And . Petitioner/Accused State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Coui:for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and another ORDER: ... Respondents This criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused seeking to quash lhe proceedings in cc No.10 of 2o2o on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, yadadri Bhongir District, registered for the offences under sections 4s2,324,504 and s06 lpc.

2. l-leard smt. Uma Devi Nama, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and sri Jithender Rao Veeramaila, learned Additionat Public Proseiutor for the respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner l'rerein is a Headmistress and the allegations against the h.v i I I I i I 2 EfD,J Crr.P. No.119i0 ol 2025 !-I\ *rT I petitioner are false and the present case is filed as a counter blast to the case filed by the petitioner herein. He further submitted that the husband of the petitioner-Rama Hari Prasad is in illicit relationship with the daughter of the de facfo complainant i.e. Mayuri and that as her husband and the daughter of the de facfo complainant have been harassing the petitioner, she lodged a complaint against said Rama Hari Prasad, Mayuri and the de facto complainant' Therefore, the present case is filed as a counter blast, out of revenge against the petitioner herein. He further submitted that the petitioner is a reputed Teacher and is in the list of teachers nominated for international training program. He further submitted that continuation of proceedings against the petitioner would cause heavy loss to her reputation and image in the society and hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioner is alleged to have beaten the de facto complainant and her daughter at their residence and has damaged the stock in their Kirana store. He further submitted that the de facto complainant and her daughter were examined by a doctor, who has also issued medical certificate. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition,-'--. .-'

5. Perused the record. I I ) EfO,J CrLP. No.14930 ol 2025

6. lt is alleged that the petitioner herein entertained suspicion over her lrusband that he developed ilticit intimacy with LW.2, who is the dauelhter of LW.'l-de facfo complainant. Out of the said suspicion, she often used to abuse both of them and threatened them that she would file a case under SC and ST Act. On 30.06.2019, at 5.30 hours, while the de facto complainant, her two daughters, and her son-in-raw i.e. LWs.1 to 4 were at their house, the petitioner has criminaily trespassed into their house armed with the stick and assaulted the de factocomplainant and her daughter and ransackecr the grocery items of their kirana shop rocated in the front portion of the residence of the de facfo complainant. Thus, a pima facle casr: exists against the petitioner herein. A perusal of the charge sheet reveals that LW.3 is shown to be an eye witness and LW.8 is Dr. Sandhya Rani, who is said to have issued MLCs. Thus, the veracity of the witnesses and the .strength of the medical evidence rreed to be tested during the course of triar. Hence, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. However, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the petition by dispensing with the attendance of the petitioner before the trial court.

7. ,\ccordingly, the Criminal petition is disposed of dispensing with the gttendance of the petitioner before the trial court, provided v A 4 ETD,J Cil.P. No.11930 ol 2025 she is represented by a counsel before the trial court on every date of hearing and that she shal! appear before the trial court as and when her presence is required during the course of trial Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed SD/. P PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER ,ffRUE COPY" To,

1. The Judicial First class Magistrate, Bhongir, Yadadri Bhongir District 2.TheStationHouseofficer,BhongirTNPolicestation,Bhongir,Rachakonda District

3. One CC to SRI UMA DEVI NAMA Advocate [OPUC] 4.TwoCCstoPublicProsecutor,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat Hyderabad IOUTI

5. Two CD CoPies VM/ABK -Tn vlvlrf1'Jr\ c@ a HIGH COURT DATED: 29112l,20'25 ORDER CRLP.No.14930 ot 2025 HES of.1 6 !_, [ 2 rtB 2U6 * * / / \ t DISPOSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION g z--1, f ,, .