The High Court · 2025

1. State of Telangana, through S.H.O., P.S. Lingala Ghanpur, Repr the Public Prosecutor, Hon'ble High Court for the State of Hyderabad. esented by Telangana,

2. Tabeti Swarajyam W/o. Ramesh Rao, aged about 52 years, Occ. House wife, Rl/o. Flat No.'102, Prashanth Residency, Prashanth Nagar, Hanumakonda. ...RESPONDENTS/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 call for the records in C.C. No. 765 of 2025 in FIR No.433 ot 2024, on the file of lll Addl. Judicial First-Class Magistrate at Hanumakonda and quash the same. l.A NO: I oF 2025 Petition under section 52g of BNSS praying that ir the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, t re High court may be pleased to grant stay of afl further proceedings incrudinlr the appearance of the Petitioner in c'c No. 76s of 2o2s in FrR No.433 of 202 4, on the fire of ,r Addl. Judiciar First-crass Magistrate at Hanumakonda, in t r interest of justice and fair play, pending the disposal of the above Criminal peti:i >n. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing fl- -. Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition and upon hearing the arg.r nents of Sri Afla Abhinandhan Reddy, Advocate for the petitioners, sri Jithen<ir r Rao Veeramara, Additionar Pubric prosecutor on beharf of the Responderrl No. .l and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER i I IN TH HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA ATHYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.l 6923 ot2025 Date:, 17.12.2025 Between; Pillala Indira and five others AND .Petitioners The State of Telangana, Through SHO, P.S. Lingata Ghanpur, Represented by the Public Prosecutor, Hon'ble High Court for the State of Hyderabad, and another. ...Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.765 of 2025, on the file of III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Hanumakonda, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.l to 6, for the offences punishable under Sections 329(3),324(4),109(l), 118(2), r/w. 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 (for short'BNS').

2. Heard Mr. Atla Abhinandhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. I . r . I I I I I i I I/' 2 Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted hat petitioners

3. have not committed the offence and they were falsel I implicated in the present crime. Even according to the allegations made either in the complaint or in the final report, the ingredientr; lor the offence under Sections 329(3), 324(4), 111(2),351(2)' 79 r w 3(5) of BNS are not attracted. Hence, the continuation of t re proceedings against the petitioners amounts to a clear abuse 'r'the process of iaw.

4. Per contra,leamed Additional Public Pror;' cutor submitted that specific allegations have been levelled againr;l the petitioner to attract the offence punishable under Sections 329(3), 324(4), tr7(2), 351(2), 19 rlw 3(5) of BNS' The Inv: 'tigating Officer' after recording the statements of witnesses unit r Section 16l of Cr.P.C., filcd irnal report wherein' the witr'r sses specihcally mentioned the role of the petitioners' Hence, thr: letitioners cannot seek quashing of the crime on the grounds rair ed in the present criminal petition.

5. Having considered the rival submissic os made by the respective parties and after perusal of the rna erial available on record, it reveals that there are specific allegat < ns levelled against the petitioners, as per final report and the state nents of witnesses 3 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., recorded by the Investigating Officer. At this stage, whether the petitioners have committed the atleged offence has to be adjudicated only after a full-fledged trial by the Trial Court. Hence, this Court does not find any ground to quash the proceedings.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner after dictating the order requested this Court to dispense with the presence of the petitioner before the trial Court, and the same was not opposed by the leamed Additional Public Prosecutor.

7. Taking into the consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that petitioner No.4 is housewife and petitioner Nos.5 and 6 are students, this Court is inclined to dispense with their presence in C.C.No.765 of 2025, on the file of III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Hanumakonda, subject to the condition that the petitioners/accused Nos.4 to 6 shall be represented by their counsel on every date of hearing, unless their presence is specihcally required during the course of the trial. In the event of non-appearance of petitioners/accused Nos.4 to 6 on any date so fixed by the trial Court, the trial Court shall be entitled to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 4

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand I closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/. 1,I OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSIIi TANT REGISTRAR ,/.,+1.,/ :iECTION OFFICER

1. The lll Additional Judicial First-Class Magistrate at Hanurr rkonda 2. The Station House Officer, Subedari Police Staiton, Hanrrr rkonda District 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the [i1 ate of Telangana at Hyderabad.IOUT]

4. One CC to Sri Atla Abhinandhan Reddy Advocate [OPUo 5. Two CD Copies VH W / :_i'i (, T,i -.: \ F.i-a ^.n g utu iL, i !.-) -j. i\ - i=: HIGH COURT DATED: 1711212025 -/2'. ,1t<'<, ,,..'>+ .|,.' ', t. ' .t- ORDER CRLP.No.16923 ot 2025 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETTTION /:\ t94Ytr \w

1. State of Telangana, through S.H.O., P.S. Lingala Ghanpur, Repr the Public Prosecutor, Hon'ble High Court for the State of Hyderabad. esented by Telangana,

2. Tabeti Swarajyam W/o. Ramesh Rao, aged about 52 years, Occ. House wife, Rl/o. Flat No.'102, Prashanth Residency, Prashanth Nagar, Hanumakonda. ...RESPONDENTS/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 call for the records in C.C. No. 765 of 2025 in FIR No.433 ot 2024, on the file of lll Addl. Judicial First-Class Magistrate at Hanumakonda and quash the same. l.A NO: I oF 2025 Petition under section 52g of BNSS praying that ir the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, t re High court may be pleased to grant stay of afl further proceedings incrudinlr the appearance of the Petitioner in c'c No. 76s of 2o2s in FrR No.433 of 202 4, on the fire of ,r Addl. Judiciar First-crass Magistrate at Hanumakonda, in t r interest of justice and fair play, pending the disposal of the above Criminal peti:i >n. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing fl- -. Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition and upon hearing the arg.r nents of Sri Afla Abhinandhan Reddy, Advocate for the petitioners, sri Jithen<ir r Rao Veeramara, Additionar Pubric prosecutor on beharf of the Responderrl No. .l and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER i I IN TH HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA ATHYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.l 6923 ot2025 Date:, 17.12.2025 Between; Pillala Indira and five others AND .Petitioners The State of Telangana, Through SHO, P.S. Lingata Ghanpur, Represented by the Public Prosecutor, Hon'ble High Court for the State of Hyderabad, and another. ...Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.765 of 2025, on the file of III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Hanumakonda, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.l to 6, for the offences punishable under Sections 329(3),324(4),109(l), 118(2), r/w. 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 (for short'BNS').

2. Heard Mr. Atla Abhinandhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. I . r . I I I I I i I I/' 2 Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted hat petitioners

3. have not committed the offence and they were falsel I implicated in the present crime. Even according to the allegations made either in the complaint or in the final report, the ingredientr; lor the offence under Sections 329(3), 324(4), 111(2),351(2)' 79 r w 3(5) of BNS are not attracted. Hence, the continuation of t re proceedings against the petitioners amounts to a clear abuse 'r'the process of iaw.

4. Per contra,leamed Additional Public Pror;' cutor submitted that specific allegations have been levelled againr;l the petitioner to attract the offence punishable under Sections 329(3), 324(4), tr7(2), 351(2), 19 rlw 3(5) of BNS' The Inv: 'tigating Officer' after recording the statements of witnesses unit r Section 16l of Cr.P.C., filcd irnal report wherein' the witr'r sses specihcally mentioned the role of the petitioners' Hence, thr: letitioners cannot seek quashing of the crime on the grounds rair ed in the present criminal petition.

5. Having considered the rival submissic os made by the respective parties and after perusal of the rna erial available on record, it reveals that there are specific allegat < ns levelled against the petitioners, as per final report and the state nents of witnesses 3 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., recorded by the Investigating Officer. At this stage, whether the petitioners have committed the atleged offence has to be adjudicated only after a full-fledged trial by the Trial Court. Hence, this Court does not find any ground to quash the proceedings.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner after dictating the order requested this Court to dispense with the presence of the petitioner before the trial Court, and the same was not opposed by the leamed Additional Public Prosecutor.

7. Taking into the consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that petitioner No.4 is housewife and petitioner Nos.5 and 6 are students, this Court is inclined to dispense with their presence in C.C.No.765 of 2025, on the file of III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Hanumakonda, subject to the condition that the petitioners/accused Nos.4 to 6 shall be represented by their counsel on every date of hearing, unless their presence is specihcally required during the course of the trial. In the event of non-appearance of petitioners/accused Nos.4 to 6 on any date so fixed by the trial Court, the trial Court shall be entitled to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 4

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand I closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/. 1,I OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSIIi TANT REGISTRAR ,/.,+1.,/ :iECTION OFFICER

1. The lll Additional Judicial First-Class Magistrate at Hanurr rkonda 2. The Station House Officer, Subedari Police Staiton, Hanrrr rkonda District 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the [i1 ate of Telangana at Hyderabad.IOUT]

4. One CC to Sri Atla Abhinandhan Reddy Advocate [OPUo 5. Two CD Copies VH W / :_i'i (, T,i -.: \ F.i-a ^.n g utu iL, i !.-) -j. i\ - i=: HIGH COURT DATED: 1711212025 -/2'. ,1t<'<, ,,..'>+ .|,.' ', t. ' .t- ORDER CRLP.No.16923 ot 2025 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETTTION /:\ t94Ytr \w