Kotla Linga Reddy v. The State of Telangana

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 in PRC No. 12 of 2025 On the file oF Additional Judicial First Class lvlagistrate at Bhuvanagiri against Petitioner/Accused No.6 till the disposal of the quash petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri K. Rajashekar , Advocate for the petitioners and sri Jithender Rao Veeramafla, the Additionar pubric Prosecutor on behalf of the Sole Respondent. CRIMINAL PET ITION NO: I 4999 0F 2025 Between: Poreddy Business, District. AND Vuaya Chandra Reddy, S/o Linga Reddy , aged about 38 years, Occ. R/o. Edulagudem, lvtiryatagud6m Town, Sri" Nagar Cofony, Nalgonda ..Petitioner/Accused No.7 The State of Telangana, Through pS Bibi Nagar., Rep by pubtic prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. ...Respondent Petitlon under Section 529 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the l\/emorandum of Grourrds of criminar petition. the High court may be preased to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused l,lo.7 in pRC No. 12 of 2025 On the file of Add jtional Judicial First Class lvlagistrate at Bhuvanagiri. l.A. NO: 2 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 all further proceedi;-rgs in pRC No. 12 of 2o2s on the fire of Additionai Judiciar First crass Magistrate at Bhuvanagiri against petitionerAccused No.7 ti, the disposal of the qr-rash petitron. This petition coming on for hea; ing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petitron and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K_ Rajashekar , Advocate for the petrtioner and sri Jithender Rao Veeramara, the Additionar pubric Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court rnade the following: ORDER HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.15 OOO and 14999 of2O25 Date: O6.O3.2O26 Between: Kotla Linga Reddy Poreddy Vijaya Chandra Reddy The State of Telangana. AND .. Petitioner/Accused No.6 in Crl.P.No.15O00 of 2025 Pe titioner/ Accused No.7 in Crl.P.No. 14999 I 2025 : COMMON ORDER: . Respondents These Criminal Petitions have been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.6 and 7 respectively seeking to quash the proceedings in PRC No.12 of 2O2S on the hie of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate ar Bhuvanagiri, for the offences under Sections 42O, 406, 464, 468, 47I, 2a6, 336 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (for short, 'the IPCJ, Secrion 9(B)(1)(b) of the Explosives Act, 1884 and Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. 2

#2. Heard Mr. K.Rajashekar, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. Jirhendcr Rao Veeramaila, learned Additional public Prosecutor, appcaring on bchalf ol respondent-Stale. 3, Learncd counsel for thc petitioners submitted that the issue raised in the prescnt criminal peti[ions is squarely covered by the orders passed by Lhis Court in Crl.P.No.39 13 of 2025, dated

25.10.2025, u.here under accused Nos.8 to 10 have approached this Courl seeking 10 quash the very same proceedings in pRC No. 12 of 2025 on the file of Lhe learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Bhuvanagiri and this Court allowecl the said Criminal Petition and quashed the proceedings against them and also placed copt' of the said order. The petitioners are also entitled for Lhe very sarne relief on the ground that the very same allegations arc ievelled againsl them. Hence, continuation ol the procceclings againsL Lhe petilioners is a clear abuse of the process of lart,.

#4. 'l-hc said submission has not disputed by the learned Additiona[ Public Prosecutor.

#5. I n vieq, ol thc abovc said submrssions and taking into consideration the orders passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.3913 of 2025, dated 25.70.2025, this Courr finds it to be a fit case to 3 exerclse ..yurisdiction under Section 52g of the BNSS to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein. 6. Accordingly, both the Criminal petitions are allowed and the proceedings in pRC No.12 of 2O2S on the file of Additionat Judicial First Class Magistrate at Bhuvanagiri, against the petitioners/ accused Nos.6 and7, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed S d/. P.PONNA KRISHNA A SISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, SECTION OFFICER 1 2 The Addition The Station Bhuvanagiri) al Judicial First Class Magistrate at Bhuvanagiri. House Officer, Bibinagar police Station, Ra'chakonOa (yadadri_ 3. Tvtro CCs to public prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at 4. One CC to Sri K Rajashekar, Advocate [OpUC] 5. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUTI t i Sa,iba T,trv HIGH COURT DATED: 0610312026 COMMON ORDER CRLP.No.15000 AND 14999 of 2025 rliltE S i .Jt U u11 :112fi I 6 t sPAtc t ALLOWING BOTH THE CRIMINAL PETITIONS fr\ (t':- l"s t-l:-lue , I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.3913 of 2O25 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is liled seeking to quash the charge sheet against the petitioners/ accused Nos.8 to 10 in P.R.C.No. 12 of 2025 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Bhongir for the offences punishable under Sections 2a6,336, 42O, 406,464,471of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "I.P.C."), Section 9(B)(1)(b) of the Explosives Act, 1884 and Sections 4 and 5 ofthe Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and pass such other order or orders.

#2. Heard Mr. K.Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.tr. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State.

#3. The brief lacts of the case are that on 23.03.2024, the Sub- Inspector of Police, Bibinagar, a-Iong with his staff, CISF personnel and the Static Surveillance Team (SST) conducted vehicle checks at the Toll Plaza in Guduru Village in view of the General Elections-2o24; that approximately at 04:00 hours, the Police had intercepted the Ashok Leyland Ecomet Explosive Container Vehicle bearing Registration No.TS O7 UG 9506 and 2 questioned its driver, took htm into custody and conducted thorough interrogation. During the interrogatron, the Driver disclosed that he had becr-r working as the Driver for Bayyapu Hanmanthu Reddy; that his employer runs an Explosives business under the name and style of Sri Sai Hanurnan Enterprises, located in Molgara (V), Uppununthala (M), Nagarkarnool District and he regularly drove the said Vehicle and transported explosives as per the instructions of his Employer.

#4. It is further statcd that on 22.03.2024 dtrtng evening hours, upon follou, ing the clirections of hrs employer, the Driver drove the Ecomet Vehicle No.TS 07 UG 9506 to Srinivasa Enterprises at Kondapur (V), Ghatkesar (M), Medchal Malkajgiri district; that Dathu/accuscd No.3, the Manager of Srinivasa Enterprrses, loaded 6,925 kg of explosives into the Vehicle. Dathu informed Narsimulu/ accused No.4 that their owners, Devendar Reddy/accused No.2 and Hanumanthu Reddy/accused No.1 hacl already discussed the transportation details; that as per their instructions, Dathu handed over the rvaybiil to Narsimhulu, instructing him not to disclose it; that further, Narsimulu was to receive another way bill from Parashuram/accused No.5, which he was expected to present it whenever required. He was strictly .// -) instructed to deliver the explosives only to the destination mentioned in the second waybill; that the Manager/Dathu further advised the Driver to remain calm and provide normal responses if questioned about the explosives to avoid suspicion; that meanwhile, Parashuram sent the second way bill via whats app to Narsimulu's phone. Upon examining the way bill given by Dathu, it was identified as Waybill No.l0l8 2631 8770, Invoice No.SE/23-24-4416, authorizing the transport of 6,925 kg of Ideal Boost explosivcs from Srinivasa Enterprises, Kondapur to Sri Mahalakshmi Enterprises, Pedda Suraram (V), Nalgonda district; that the second way bill No.i2i8 2636 8333, Invoice No.215, indicating the transport of 6,925 kg of Ideal Boost explosives from Sri Sai Hanuman Enterprises, Molgara (V), Uppununthala (M), Nagar kurnool District to Someshwara Stone Crushers, Palakurthi, Jangaon District; that for the said illegal transportation, Narsimulu's employer offered him additional money, which he accepted; that the Driver further revealed that Hanumanthu Reddy and Dathu instructed him to leave Srinivasa Enterprises, Kondapur, at O3:0O AM to evade police checks; that as per their instructions, on 23.O3.2024, at around 03:OO A.M., he departed from Kondapur with the explosives laden Ecomet Vehicle No.TS 07 UG 9506 heading towards Palakurthi; that 4 upon reaching the 1'ol1 Gate at Guduru around 04:OO AM, he was intercepted by the police. Based on his confession, the Sub-Inspector of Police, SI Bibi Nagar seized 6.925 kgs of Ideal Boost explosives, packed tn 277 card board boxes, the Ashok Leyland Ecomet Explosive Container Vehicle, Dark brown Vivo Mobile phone belonging to Narsimulu; that two copies of the way bills were seized from Pedaveedu Narsimulu. Basing on the said facts, the present crime is registerecl.

#5. Learned counsel for the petrtioners submits that the petitioners are workers in the stone crusher unit and have no role to play in procuring, handting or transporting the explosives. He further states that the petitioners have obtained all the requisite licenses from the relevant authorities such as the Petroleum & Explosives Safety Organization (PESO) and the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority.

#6. He further contends that the petitioners are implicated in the present crime solely basing on the confession statement of co-accused and that as per Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a confession made to the police Officer, by an accused is inadmissible in evidence. Therefore, he seeks to quash the impugned proceedlngs. )

#7. Learned Assistant public prosecutor contehds that the police, upon thorough investigation, registered the subject F.I.R. against the petitioners for the alleged offences and the interference of this Court, at this stage, is unwarranted. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the Criminal petition. 8. A perusal of the record shows that this Court vide order dated 04.09.2O2S granted interim stay of all further proceedings in F.I.R.No.73 of 2024 on the file of the Station House Oflicer, Bibinagar and the same was extended from time to time. 9. Having regard to the submissions of both the learned counsel and on perusal of the F.I.R. and the remand case diary, there is no specific allegation as alleged against the petitioners in the charge sheet. Further, there is no narration on the aspect of the role of the petitioners herein on the applicability of the sections of law imposed against the petitioners. In the absence of any specific allegations against the petitioners and in the absence of any cogent evidence against the petitioners to show their role in the commission of alleged offences, this Court, by relying on the decision passed in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lalr, at illustration S(g), wherein the Hon, ble Supreme Court had I Civil Appeal No 5412 of 1990 dated 2 1. 1 1. 199O l i I I I ' 6 categoricaliy discussed the cases where power could be exercised under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to secure the ends of justice, is of the opinion that criminal proceedings are mahciously instituted against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on them and to spite them due to private or personal grudge. Hence, this Court finds it unjust to force the petitioners to go through the tribulations of trial. 1 0. Therefore, this Court is inclined to allow the Criminal Petition by quashing the proceedings in so far as the petitioners/ accused Nos.B to 10 are concerned in p.R.C.No. 12 of 2025 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Bhongir for the afore cited offences. I 1. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. Date: 25.lO.2025 ESP E.V.VENUGOPAL, J