The High Court · 2025

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

2. Pedda Beemarayudu Boya, S/o Late Thikkanna Aged about. 48 Yrs, Occ: Agriculture fuo 247,Kaloor Village, Timmanadoddi Village, Nandinne Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District ...RESPONDENTS/DE.FACTO 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 FIR in Crime No.169 oI 2025 on the file of the P.S.Dharoor (M), Jogulamba Gadwal District against the petitioners/A-4 to 7 and in the remand report Accused No.13 to 16 l.A NO: 2OF 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 proceedings including the arrest of the petitioners/A-4 to A7 and in the remand report A-13 to 16 in Crime No.169 of 2025 on the file of the P.S.Dharoor (M), Jogulamba Gadwal District * This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing he Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argur ents of Sri BOLLU NAGARAJU, Advocate for the Petitioners and SRI JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of tl e Respondent No.'l and None Appeared for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER o IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.16348 of 2025 Date: 10.12.2025 Between Chandrabanda Mahadev and three others AND ...Petitioners The State ofTelangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, l{yderabad and another ...Respondents ORDER This Criminat Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No. I 69 of 2025, on the file of Dharoor (M) Police Station, Jogulamba Gadwal, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.4 to 7, for the offences punishable under Sections 103 (l) and 238 (a) r/w. 6l (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS'). 2 Heard Mr.Bollu Nagaraju, leamed counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. I . 2

3. Leamed counsel lor the petitioners sub r irs that the petitioners havc not corrnritted thc offences and lra', been falsely irnplicated in thc prcsent case. t,ven according to the , ornplaint. the narnes ol the pctitioners rverc initially mentioned as r rcused Nos.4 to 7. Thereafter, in the remand case diary, their statu; ,r,as shown as accused Nos.13 to 16. Ever-r as per the allegations rnade in the cornplaint and the rernand case diary, the entirc : Icgations are levelled only against accused Nos.1 to 12. There are r o allegations, nruch less specif-rc allegations, against the petitione .: ro attract the ingredients of the offences under Sections 103(l ) r r C 23g(a) r/w. 6l(2) of the BNS. 'fhe remand case diary itself'r: lects that the alleged incident occurred due to political rivalr., between the dbceased and accused Nos. l Lo 1 2. The petitioners u r re not present at the scene of offence, and there are no specific alletr ations against thern. Hence, continuation of the proceedin_q; against the petitioners amounts to a clear abuse of the process o aw. + Per contra, learned Additional public proser I tor submitted that there is a link between accused Nos. I to 12. r e petitioners, and tJ-re other accused. He further submitted that specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioner s and the other accused, wlio are stated to have committed grave o 'l :nces, and the l I i I l i ) I ! . I l ) \ \ i 3 investigation is still in progress. He further submits that the vehicle belonging to accused No.l2 has been seized by the investigating agency. Wliether the petitioners have committed the offences or not, whether they had any role in the alleged incident or not has to be revealed during the course of investigation. Since the investigation is stilt in progress, the petitioners cannot seek quashing of the crir-ne on the grounds raised in the present criminal petltron.

5. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it is revealed that, based on the complaint todged by respondent No.2, Crime No.t69 of 2025 was registered for the offences under Sections 103(1) and 238(a) r/w. 61(2) olthe BNS. In the said complaint, specihc allegations are levelled against the petitioners. It is not in dispute that, in the remand case diary, based on the statements of LWs. I to 21, recorded by the investigating officers, the status of the petitioners was altered to accused Nos.13 to 16. Even according to the leamed Additionat Public Prosecutor, the investigation is still in progress. Taking into consideration the gravity of the offences and the fact that the investigation is in progress, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings at this 4 stage. Whether the petitioners had any role in the (r, rnmission of the allegcd oll-ences is a rnatter to be detennined drri tg the course of investigation and, subsequently, during trial. Ar , is stage. this Court does not ttnd any ground to quash the proceetl r ls

6. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismisser Pending rniscellaneous applications, il an. shall stand closcd. I SD/. A.JAYASREE ASS STANT REGISTRAR Li," " SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPYII To, 1 2 The lAdditionar Judiciar Magistrate First crass at Gadv'i l, Joguramba Gadwar District I:il:?[:l,f;use officer, Dharoo(M) potice Station, r) raroor, Josutamba

3. One CC to SRt BOLLU NAGARAJU Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to public prosecutor, High Court for the State f Telangana at 5. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] VM/PSL W o/> HIGH COURT DATED: 1011212025 ORDER CRLP.No.16348 ot 2025 -7: ..t\( II I SIA ,.J rJ () 1l it ir76 * , rr'rr..{:.).i/ : -:::-;'- - DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION ,., ir [t L' ',, Izi ) ,l :; {, r-l4