The High Court · 2025

Rl/o H. No.10-5-316/'1 , Ahmed Nagar, First Lancer, Hydera rad, T.S.

17. Mohd Muneer, S/o N,4ohd Siddique, Aged about 38 years )cc. Pvt Employee, R/o H.No.16-8-855, Saidabad Colony, Hyderabad, T.S. lB.Jaffaruddin, S/o Hassanuddin, Aged about 31 years, Oc; Pvt Employee, R/o H.No.10-5-7711 , Ahmed Nagar, lvlasabtank, Hyderabad, I S.

19.G. Arun, S/o L-ate Amarnath, Aged about 31 years, Oci:. Pvt. Employee. R/o H.No. 1 0-1 -'1 2/79, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad, T.S.

20. Syed Saifuddin, S/o Najamuddrn, Aged about 26 years )cc. Pvt. Employee, R/o H.No.12-2-336/8, Murad Nagar, Asif Nagar, Hyderalr d, T.S.

21. tr/ohd Abdul Rafay, S/o Mohd Abdul Samad, Aged zrl out 24 years, Occ Student, R/o l-l.No.8-4-550/85, Natraj Nagar, Erragadda lyderabad, T.S 22 Shah Salahuddin, S/o Shabuddin, Aged about 27 years fcc Pvt. Employee, RJo H.No.8-4-550i85, Ahmed Nagar, Syed Nagar, Hyder; cad, T.S.

23. Mohd Taimoor, S/o Mohd Qamar, Aged about 32 years, )cc Pvt. Employee, R/o H.No.10-6-178, Ahmed Nagar, lVlasabtank, Hyderabe 1, T.S

24. Shaik Aslam, S/o Shaik Shareef, Aged about 23 years )cc. Pvt. Employee, Rl/o H.No.10-6-31919812, Ahmed Nagar, fVlasabtank, Hyil rabad, T.S. 25 lr,4ohd Zaber, S/o Mohd Jaffer, Aged about 26 years, Ocr PM. Employee, F/o H. No. 1 2-1 -486 I Al 1 21, Jhirra, Hyderabad, T.S.

26.Sohail Baig, S/o Azmath Baig, Aged about 26 years, Ocr Pvt. Employee, R/o H No.'12-2-331314, Asif Nagar, Hyderabad, T.S.

27. Shaik Moiz, S/o Shaik Jalaluddin, Aged about 25 years, Ccc Pr,'t. Employee, 28. tr/d. Thaleef, S/o tr.4d. Raheem, Aged about 25 years, O j . Dnver, R/o H.No.8- Rlo H.No 18-i65ll, Shahpur, Hyderabad, T.S. 3-2281618 17 55, Yousufguda, Hyderabad, T.S.

29.F eroz Khan, S/o Nazir Khan, Aged about 25 years. )cc. Electrician, Rl/o H.No.8-3-228t678/703, Karmika Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyc erabad, T.S.

30.Abdul Samad Khan, S/o Abdul Hafez Khan, Aged abor- 25 years, Occ. Pvt. Employee, RJo H No.8-3-228116, Yousufguda, Hyderab,r l, T.S. 3'l .Md. Sameer, Sio Md Basith, Aged about 27 years, O; . Tailor, R/o H.No.9- 11-2381581A, Banjari Darwaza, Golconda, Hyderabad,-,I . i. ...PET|T|ONERyACCUSED \ C.3,4,6 TO 15,17,19, 2 r,22 TO32&34 TO 38 AND

1. State of Telangana, Through Public Prosecutor at High ( ourt of Telangana 2. Through State Police, Sri. K Janaiah, Sub lnspector of I) rlice, Humayun Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS 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 proceedings in CC No.B24 oI 2022 on the File of Vl Addl. Metropolitan tt4agistrate, Hyderabad, for the offence under Section 269, 188 lPC, Section 51(B) of DM Act and Section 3 and 4 of The Telangana Gaming AcI, 1974 against the Petitioners/ Accused No.3, 4, 6 to 15, 17, 19, 20, 22 lo 32 and 34 to 38 This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri MD WAJAHATH ALI ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri V.Jithender rao Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent Nol and 2. The Court made the following: ORDER I IN THE HI(;H COURT FOR THE STATE OF'I'T I,ANGANA AT HYDERAI}AD THE HONOIJRABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENt /AS RAC) cnrnrrnal pBrruox t 5 Date:08.12.2025 Between: Azhar Ali Khan and thirty others AND State of 'l elangarrir Through Public l)rosccr.rtor at High Courr ol Tclangana and another ...Petitioner Respondcr-rts O rder This Criminal Petition is illed seeking t r quash the proceedings in C (-l.No.814 of 2022, on tl.re lile of tl'rr: \/I Additional Chief Metropolilan Magistlate, I lyderabad. wherein he petitioners were amayed as accused Nos.3. 4, 6 to 15, 17, 19,20, 2 I to 32 and 34 to 3 8, registcrerd lbr the oflences punishable under Scc ions 269, 188 of the Indian Pcnal Code, ltt(rO, 5l(b) of the Disast,r Managernent Act, 2005, Sections 3 and 4 of the Telangana Gaming ,\ :t, 197 4.

2. Heard Mr.Md.Wajahath Ali, leamed counsel fo' .he petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Ad<[i .ional Public Prosecutor, represcnting rcspondents. 2

3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 10.05 .2021, at about 00:30 hours, rvhile the Police, Ilurnayun Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad. on patrolling duties, surprised Banjara Snookcr Parlour, situated at N4asab 'l'ank and lound that the said snooker parlour w'as running at late night hours violating Covemment orders and further lound 40 rnembers inside the Parlour. Basing on the report by the Sub-lnspcctor ol Police, a case in Crirne No.8l of 2021 has been registered and after investigation, final report has been llled on the llle ol the \rl Additional Chief Metlopolitan Magistrate at I ly'dcrabad and later numbered as C.C.No.824 ot 2A22

4. l-earned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners havc not committed the ofl'ences and they have been falsely implicated in the present crime. Even according to the allegations rnadc in the cornplaint, the ingredients ofthe alleged offences levelled against the petitioners are not attracted. Basing on tl-re confession staternent given by the co-accused, the petitioners were falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that accused Nos.1,2, 18 and 21 had approached this Court and filed Crl.P.No.7335 of 2025 for seeking quashment of proceedings in C.C.No.824 of 2022 and this Court has allowed the said Criminal Petition on 08.01p025 against them. The very same allegations are 3 levelled against thc pel"itioners and petitioners are alsc rntitled lor the same relief-. He, there Ibre, pral'ed to quash the proceecli Lgs against the petrtroners.

5. Leamed Additional I'ublic Prosecutor lairlv strt r ritted that this Court had considerecl thc case with similar allesa i ns as in the present petition and passed or.der in Crt.P.No.7ii5 r'1 2025 and the findings therein arc eclualll applicable to the petitioncrs

6. Taking into considelation the subr-nissions r' the leamed counsels and perr-rsed tlre materials on recold, undcr I ection 195 of the Code of (lriLnin:rl Procedure , I973 ('CrPC') st;-. rlates that, in cases involving contempt of the lawful authority of pLrt lic servants or offences against public justice, ttrc Court may take cc Snizance only upon a complaint rnade by thc concerned public ser,, Lnt. Similariy, Section 51(b) ol the Disastcr Management Act, l( 35 prescribes penalties for obstrLrcling or refirsing to comply with [r r ,1ul directions issued by an authority. Ploceedings in such cases mus - re initiated by the competent authority or an otficer duly authorized, ur accordance with the procedure laid down in Section 60(b) c 1 the Disaster Management Act, which is akin to Section 195 of CrP(l

7. For contextual clarity, Section 2(c) of the Cr .l ,.C. defines a 'cognizable ol'fencc' as one in which 4 potice of icer may, in 4 accordance with the First Schedule or urrder any other prevailing lau,, arrest without a wanant. Section 2(d) defines a 'complaint' as any allegation made orallrv or in wliting io a Magistrate, u,ith the intention of securing action under the Code, that some person, urhether known -lhis definition explicitly or unknown, has committed an ofl-ence. excludes a police repon

8. In the prcsent case, the proceedings were initiated on the basis of a police lepor-t filed by an oflicer/public servant, without any disclosure of authorization lrom thc corlrpctcnt authnrity. This factual rnatlix rcvcals tl-rat the prosecirtion is being pursued in a uranner inconsistent rvith the procedure rnandated under Section 195 CrPC and Section 60 of the Disaster N4anagement Act. As such, the very foundation of the procccdings stands vitiated. Furlher, in regard to accusations under Sections 3 and 4 of the Gaming Act, except for the evidence of police officials, no independent u,itness has been examined or any material showing that the petitioners are connected to the alleged place to make out that they are conducting gaming house or they were found garning in a common gaming house. In these peculiar circumstances of the case and in absence of any convincing material, continuing the prosecqllqq w,ould amount to an abuse of the process of [aw. w 5

9. Accordingly. this Criminal Petition is allowed. lonsequently, the proceedings in C.C.No. 82.1 of 2022 pending on he lile of the learned VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, I 1'de rabad. are hereby quashed against the petitior.rers/accused Nos.3. i. 6 to 15, 17, 19,20,22 to 32 and 34 to 38 Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shal ;tand closed. SD/- A.H.I; GOWRI SHANKAR ASSII ]TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER \ ) To,

1. The Vl Addl. l\4etropolitan t\4agistrate, Hyderabarl 2. The Station House Officer, Police Station , Humayunnage-, Hyderabad 3. One CC to SRl. IVD WAJAHATH ALt Advocate topUCl 4. Two CC to SRl. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR High court for t e state of Telangana at tlyderbad [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies o AG / I I Y $ \ i Ii ') .S \" b\ ,!i 99'u. + HlGH COURT JSRJ DATED:0811212025 ) C) LL 'd. ORDER CRLP.No.16173 of 2025 CRLP IS ALLOWEDI \ o