The High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITIO NO: 15918 OF 2025 Between: Aged about 51 years, Occ .Business, R/o. ehsil, Medchal Malkajgiri District.500062.

1. M. Lakshman, S/o. Late Advaiah, 1-7-17111, ECIL, Khapra, Keesra T 2. Eslavath Hari Nayak, S/o. E. Ramoji, R/o. Plot No.120. Sonia Gandhi Nagar 62 Jangaiah, S/o. Yadaiah, Aged about 65 years, Occ .Labor, Rlo. Kushaiguda, tMedchal-Mal kajgiri Dist. 500062. Aged about 32 years, Occ .Business, , Kushaiguda, ECIL POST Hyderabad- 3 ...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No.l to 3 AND

1. The State of Telangana, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

2. P. Ram Reddy, S/o. Late P. Bal Reddy, Aged about 61 years, Occ -Business, Rt o. 4-7 -9 I 1 I 2, Raghavendra Nagar, Uppal, Medchal-Malkajg iri, Cyberabad, Telangana State.500039 ...RESPON DENTS/COM PLAINANTS 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/Accused Nos.1 to 3 herein in Cr.No.750 of 2025 of PS Kushaiguda, Rachakonda, U/Sec. 329(4), 324(4'),351(2), r/w 3(5) BNS and pass. t.A. NO: oF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the fvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including arrest of the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 herein in Cr.No.750 of 2A25 of PS Kushaiguda, Rachakonda, U/Sec. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri VIJAY ASHRIT, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sr:i Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER t" IN THE HIGH COURT FOR AT HYDERABAD STATE OF TE ANA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMTNAL PETITION No.l59l 8 of 2025 Da

03.12.2025 Between: M.Lakshman and two others AND The State of Telangana, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Hyderabad and another ...petitioner ...respondents OR ER This criminal petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in crime No.750 of 2025, on the file of Kushaiguda Police Station, Rachakonda District, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.l to 3, for the offences punishable under Sections 329 (4), 324 (4) and 35 I (z) rlw. 3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short .BNS'). 2- Heard Mr.vijay Ashrit, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithendar Rao veeramalla, learned Additional public Prosecutor for respondent No.l d/ 2

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not committed any offence and that they were falsely implicated in the present crime. He further submits that respondent No.2, on the very same allegations, had earlier lodged two complaints. Basing on the same, the Investigating officer filed a final report against the petitioners and other accused and the said case namely C.C.No.7l of 2018 on the file of the Special Magistrate-Ill, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri, the petitioners and other accused were acquiued on 02.07.2019. He further submits that, at the instance of respondent No.2, another case, C.C.No.l28 of 2018, was registered in which the petitioners and others were arrayed as accused, and the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class at Kushaiguda, acquiffed the petitioners and the other accused through judgment dated 27.02.2025. The above judgments have affained finality. He also submits that respondent No. 2, who is the President of IWs sri Sai Ramnagar Plot Owners Welfare Association, filed a suit, O.S.No.l42Z of 2015, against the petitioners and others seeking a decree of perpetual injurtv$gn. The said suit was dismissed with costs by { ',- 3 .: judgment and decree dated 04.08.2025. Now, respondent No. 2, with the very same allegations raised in the earlier complaints as well as in O.S. No. 1422 of 2015, has lodged the present complaint, based on which Crime No.750 of 2025 was registered. I-[ence, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse of the process of law and is liable to be quashed.

4. Per contra, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor, basing upon the instructions furnished by the Sub-lnspector of Police, P.S.Rachakonda Commissionerate, dated 01.12.2A25, submits that even prior to the filing of the present criminal petition, the Investigating Officer had issued notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS to petitioner No.l/accused No.I on 12.11.2025. He further subnrits that the Investigating Officer will issue notices to petitioner Nos.2 and 3laccused Nos.Z and 3, and that he will follow the guidelines formulated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. Stote of Bihort.

5. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on ' (zotq 8 scc 273 4 record, it reveals that the petitioners were accused in C.C. No.71 of 2018 and C.C.No.l28 of 2018. The said proceedings were initiated at the instance of respondent No.2/the de facto complainant. On a perusal of the judgments dated 02.07.2019 in C.C. No. 7l of 2018 and 27.02.2025 in C.C. No.128 of 2018, it is evident that the petitioners were acquitted in both cases.

6. The record further reveals that a suit was filed by the M/s Sri Sai Ramnagar Plot Owners Welfare Association, represented by P.Ram Reddy, who is none other than respondent No. 2lthe de facto complainant, seeking perpetual injunction against the petitioners, and the said suit was dismissed on 04.08.2025. The said judgment has attained finality. The record further reveals that the Investigating Officer has already issued notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, which was served on petitioner No.l/accused No.l on 12.1L.2025, while notices could not be served on petitioner Nos.2 and3/accused Nos.2 and3.

7. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Investigating Officer is directed to serve notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS on petitioner Nos.2 and 3laccused Nos. 2 and 3, and follow the guidelines formulated I I i 5 by the Hon'ble Apex court in Arnesh Kumar,.s case (supra). upon receipt of such notice, the petitioners are grar-rted liberty to submit their reply/statement by enclosing all relev.ant documents, including copies of the j udgments passed in c.c. N< t.t2g of 20 r g dated 27.02.2025, c.c. No.7r of 20rg dared a2.07.2019, and the judgment in o-S.No.1422 of 20r5 dated 04.08.?-025, to the Investigating Officer. 8- If the petitioners/accused Nos.l to 3 fails to c.operate with the Investigating officer for investigation, the lnvestigating officer is at liberty to take action against them in accordance ,ur.ith law. 9 with the above direction, the criminar petitio, is disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed. SDI. T SRINIVASA REDDY, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR {€- SECTION OFFICER ,/TRUE COPY/ To,

1. The llAddl. Junior Civil Judge, cum ll Addl, Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda.

2. The Station House Officer, Police Station, Kushaiguda, Rachakonda 3. Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court at Hyderabad. (OUT) 4. One CC to SRI VIJAY ASHRIT Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies ,TPK Q( HIGH COURT DATED:03/1212A25 F THE S 1', I 0 fn!-l LU ie5 L. ORDER CRLP.No.15918 of 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISPOSED OF g*S ft-"