The High Court · 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 Quash the Criminal proceedings against the petitioners in STC.No.777 of 2016 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Miryalaguda, in the interest of justice. 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 grant stay of arrest of the Petitioners in STC.No.777 of 2016 on the r I I i i1 ) file of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Miryalaguda, pursu€ r t to the issuance of NBW's dt19/10/2016, pending disposal of the Criminal Petitir n, in the interest of justice. f .A. NO: 2OF 2024 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that ln stated in the ltrlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition. be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings includinp Petitioners in STC.No.777 of 2016 on the file of Judicial First Miryalaguda, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition, in tho the circumstances he High Court may appearance of the Class Magistrate at nterest of justice. This Petition coming on for hearing upon perusing t e Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argu lents of Sri HARI KISHAN KUDIKALA, Advocate for the Petitioners and the iri M Ramachandra Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respon( ent No.'1 , and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.16139 ot 2024 DATED: 16TH DECEMBER 2025 Between: Kotha Rajesh and another .Petitioners AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor and one another ORDER: Respondents This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in S.T.C.No.777 of 2016 pending on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate at Miryalaguda (for short 'the learned trial Court') registered for the offences under Sections 323, 506 of the lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC').

02. Heard Sri Harikishan Kudikala, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1 2 No representation on behalf of the respor lent No.2 Perused the record 03 The brief facts of the case are that t re husband of the complainant-respondent No.2 died in th: month of September, 2013. Thereafter, the younger brcther of her husband (hereinafter referred to as "the accusec \o. 1"), who has been residing in a portion of her hous;' allegedly hatched a plan to unlawfully occupy the said l-< use on the premise that the respondent No 2 has no legal he rs to inherit the property. ln furtherance of the said plan t re accused No l, along with his relatives (hereinafter referr(: j to as "the accused Nos.2 to 4"), allegedly began hzrrassing the respondent No.2 and threatening her with dire consequences, demanding to vacate the hcr se. Such harassment is stated to have continued for the last four to five months. Aggrieved thereby, the resp<> rdent No.2 approached the caste elders, and a pan< hayat WAS convened, wherein the elders advised the accus:d Nos. 1 to 4 not to harass the respondent No.2. However, he accused persons allegedly paid no heed to the advice :' the elders i I : : 3 and continued their acts of harassment, making repeated attempts to dispossess the respondent No.2 from the house Subsequently, the accused Nos.l to 4 allegedly assaulted the respondent No 2 by beating her with hands. At that juncture, the respondent No.2's brothers and mother intervened and rescued her, whereupon the accused persons also allegedly assaulted the respondent No.2's brothers and mother. Hence, the respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint against the accused persons

04. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4 have no connection whatsoever with the alleged offences and that there are no specific or overt allegations levelled against them. It was further submitted that the learned trial Court has already conducted the trial against the accused Nos.1 and 2 and acquitted them vide Judgment dated 31 .10.2022 passed in S.T.C.No.156 of 2014. The allegations contained in the charge sheet, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute any offence against the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4. A reading of the charge 4 sheet does not disclose the essential ingredierr s necessary to attract the offences alleged under Sections 32 3 and 506 of IPC. Hence, learned counsel prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Ncr 3 and 4.

05. On the other hand, learned Addi ional public Prosecutor appearing for the State-respo tdent No.1 contended that there are triable issues and factu ll aspects to be examined by the learned trial Court and it is rot a fit case I to quash the proceedings against the petitir: rers at this juncture and the matter is to be decided after c<l rducting full- fledged trial by the learned trial Court and praye I to dismiss this Criminal Petition

06. Having heard both sides and upon I perusal of the record, it is evident that the learned trial Cour had initially taken cognizance of the alleged offences against the accused Nos. 1 to 4. As the petitioners-accusec rlos.3 and 4 remained absent on account of their stay abroad the learned trial Court, by Order dated 19..10.2016, split r p the case against the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4 an j registered 5 the same as S.T.C.No.777 of 20'1 6, while proceeding against the accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.T.C.No.156 of 2014, the learned trial Court conducted a full-fledged trial by examining PW1 to PW5 and marking Exs Pl to P3. Upon appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court recorded a finding that there was no mention of the specific date and time of the alleged incident and that there was no evidence to substantiate the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506 of lPC. Accordingly, the accused Nos.1 and 2 were acquitted vide Judgment dated 31 .10.2022

07. On a careful perusal .of the record, it is evident that the respondent No.2 was principally aggrieved by the , conduct of the accused No. 1 and on account of such grievance, lodged the present complaint. lt is further to be noted that, upon a perusal of the contents of the charge sheet, there are no specific or overt allegations levelled against the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4, and that the major allegations are primarily directed against the accused No.1, who has already been acquitted by the learned trial Court after a full-fledged trial. The charge sheet does not 6 disclose any circumstances to indicate that th,: petitioners- accused Nos.3 and 4 either threatened the resl> >ndent No.2 with an intention to cause alarm or caused any njury to her so as to attract the offences punishable under S ections 323 and 506 of lPC. Further, there is no medi<> rl record or statement of any competent medical pr: :titioner to substantiate the allegations of hurt. Therefore, 1re essential ingredients of the alleged offences, nanrt ly criminal intimidation and voluntarily causing hurt, are rr rt made out against the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4

08. Even if the allegations contained i" the charge I sheet are taken at their face value and accel ,ted in their entirety, they do not prima facie constitute the alleged offences against the petitioners-accused Nos.ll and 4, and the material collected during the course of inv,:;tigation, AS reflected in the charge sheet, does not c isclose the commission of any offence so as to make out a ;ase against them. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, coupled with the I rct that the accused Nos.'l and 2 have already been acqritted by the I i I i 7 learned trial Court, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4 would amount to an abuse of process of law and is, therefore, liable to be quashed

09. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings agarnst the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4 in S.T.C.No.777 of 2016 pending on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate at Miryalaguda, are hereby quashed As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/-M.NAGAMANI ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY'/ ECTION OFFICER To, 1 . The Judicial Firsst Class Magistrate at Miryalguda' 2- The Station House officer, Miryalagud-ll Town Police Station. Nalgonda District. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor' High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI One CC to SRI HARI KISHAN KUDIKALA' Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI R. GlRl KUMAR'Advocate (OPUC) Two CD CoPies J 4 5 6 NVB/PSL \k HIGH COURT DATED:1611212025 ORDER CRLP.No.16139 of 2024 * {hE TA C)o 09, | z[:ii z. 6) * t .SFr, : t\ cO ALLOWING THE CR!MINAL PETITION 4 .dd-' Yv--. -/r,\,Ib ?\\\