The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Complex, High Court of Telangana, at Hyderabad The Station House Officer, Chanda Nagar Police Station,, Cyberabad Commissionerate, Hyderabad.

3. Anuradha Poddar @ Rashi Gupta,, Wo. Rohit Agarwal Aged about 40 Years, Occ. Private Employee, R/o. 1-1303, Aparna Cyber Life, Near Citizen. . Hospital, Nallagandia, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana.Pres.ently residing at Flat'No. D-402: Aparna Cyber Life, Near Citizen Hospital, Nallagandla, Ranga Reddy District, .RESPONDENT'COMPLAINANTS 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 pteased to call for the records relating to and connected with P.R.C No.10 of 2025 tor the offences U/s 420, 5O4 and 313 of IPC against petitioners/Accused No. 2 &3 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-lx Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, Hyderabad and quash the same and to pass such other order or orders as the this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. I t t.A. O:1OF 2025 Petition under Section 529 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminil Fetitio_n, the Hith Cou.t ,"y be- pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in P.R.c No.10 of 2o25for the offences Uls 420,504 and 313 of lpC against ietitioners/Accused No. 2 & 3 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge-Zum-lx Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpaily, Hyderabad, the petitioner / Accused would be put to irreparable loss and injustice. - This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri BONDEMPALLY RAMULU ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri. Jithender Rao Veeramalla the Additional Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 & 2 and none appeared for the Respondent No. 3. The Court made the fottowing: ORDER t .,/ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENTVAS RAO . CRIMINAL PETITION No.1686O of 2O25 Datez 16.L2.2O25 Between : Jagadish Prasad Gupta and another. ...Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 & 3 AND The State of Telangana represented by its Public Prosecutor and two others. Respondents ORDER: This criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in PRC No.1O of 2025, on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-tX Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy at Kukatpally, wherein petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 42O, 376 (2) (n), 504, 313 of IPC. .

2. Heard Mr. B.Ramulu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.l and 2'

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners nh.e not committed any offences and they have been 2 falsely implicated in the present case. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint as well as in the f,rnal report, the ingredients for the offence under Sections 42O,376 (2) (n), 5O4, 313 of IPC are not attracted and the entire allegations are levelled against the accused No. 1. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 is clear abuse of the process of law.

4. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioners and that the petitioners were supported the accused No.1 to commit the offence registered for the offences punishable under Sections 42O, 376 (21 (n), 504, 313 of IPC. He further submitted that the petitioners have committed the offences or not, the same has to be revealed by the trial Court after the full-fledged trial. Basing on the grounds which are pleaded in the criminal petition, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings.

5. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on I record, it reveals that there are specilic allegations levelled against the petitioners to attract the ingredients of Sections 42O, 376 (21 (nl, 5O4, 313 of IPC, whether the petitioners have committed the offences or not, the same has to be adjudicated by the trial Court aJ after the full-fledged trial' This Court does not find any ground to quash the proceedings in PRC No'10 of 2025' 6. However, taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstancesandtheageofthepetitioners,whoareToyearsand 60 years old and residing in Rajasthan' this Court is inclined to dispense with their presence before the trial Court' 7. Accordingly, the presence of the petitioners/accused Nos'2 and3inPRCNo.loof2o25,onthefileoftAdditionalJuniorCivil Judge-cum-IXAdditionalJudicialMagistrateofFirstClass,Ranga Reddy at Kukatpally' is dispensed with' subject to the condition thattheyshallberepresentedthroughtheircounseloneachand everydateofhearingandalsotheyshallappearbeforethetrial Court whenever their presence is required. In case of their non- appearance on the specific date fixed by the trial Court for their appearance,thetrialCourtisentitledtoproceedwiththematter,in accordance with law 8. With the above said directions' the criminal petition ls dismissed I I Miscellaneous aPPlications , pend.ing if anY, shall stand closed SD/ .M.NAGAMANI SISTANT REGIST RAR /TTRUE GOPY'/ OFFICER To, ' H;"l:$:ll8lfl iJx;"5311[dliflif'1[]"']'

2. The Station House Commissionerate' Officer, Chanda Nagar Hyderabad. Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Hyderabad. Police Station,, CYberabad 7

3. one cc to sRr. BONDEMPALLY RAMULU Advocate [opucl 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana I - at Hyderabad [OUT].

5. Two CD Copies PK/PSL\t / t. l HIGH COURT DATED:16t12t2025 \ \ CRLP.No.16860 o!,2 ,$, ,r -.s $. (5 \ I i"l t CRIMINAL PEITITION IS DISMISSED. 4 "dlt tr6, ! a