High Court · 2025

petition under section 52g of.cr.f._c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminai p"tition, the High court may be pleased to stay^a.il.furthei:pioc"eoings in c.c.rvo 3s4 of 2o23,on the Fire of the Honble xlv Addl. trrtetropotitan nrlgistraie,"cyo"rrouo-ll'itayathnagar, against the petitioner/A1, pending disposar of the petition. This petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the t\Iemorandum of Grounds of criminat F"iiiion _g!d ,p", ti"uring the arguments of 'REDD', sri s. .HANDRA M.HAN AJuo"riL for the peiitioner and sri V' Jithendar Rao, Additional puoLi" pro.".u1oi on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared on behalf of Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER AT HYDERABAD THE I{ONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CBIMINAL PETITION No.17266 of 2025 Datez 23.12.2025 Between:, Pole Srihari The State of Telangana, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad and another. AND ...Petitioner Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedirrgs in C.C.No.354 of 2023 on the file of XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hayathnagar, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.l for the offences punishable under Ser;tion 420 rlw 511 of the Indian Penal Code, Section L77 of the Motc,r Vehicles Act and Section 80(a) of the Central Motor Vehicle Flules. 2- Heard Mr.S.Chandra Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and lvk.V.Jithendar Rao, learned Additional public Prosecutcrr for respondent No.1. 2

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue raised in this criminal petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.l3452 of 2025, dated 16.10-2025-

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not opposed the submission made by the learned counsel for petitioner-

5. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the respective parties and the order passed by this Court in crl.P.No.l3452 of 2025, dated 16.10.2025, this criminal petition is atlowed. The proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.l in

2023.on the file of XIV Additional Metropolitan ,ic,f3$,'354,.of Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hayathnagar are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. sd/- H . GOWRI SHAN ANT RE R //TRUE COPYII To, CTION OFFICER t Hayathnagar,

1. The XIV Additional Metropolitan NIag istrate, Cybera erabad. Hvd The Station House Officer, Hayathnagar P.S., Rac 2 3. Two CC to Additional Publ ic Prosecutor, H igh Court for the State of 4. G.Narasimha, S/o Not known, Aged. Major, Occ. Sub inspector of police R/o 5. One CC to SR!. S Chandra [\Iohan Reddy, Advocate tOpUC] 6. Two CD Copies Telangana, Hyderabad lourl Hayathnagar Police station, Ranga Reddy strict. da Commissionate. STBiDL W* t HIGH COI.'RT DATED i23i11212025 ORDER CRLP.No.17266 of 2025 o ( * D ? 1 t{:B 2f17fi * CRIMINAl. PETITION IS ALLOWED 1 v b THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.13452 ot 2025 ORDER:- 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.3 in C.C.No.8323 of 2022 on the file of the learned lll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 420 rlw.51 1 of IPC and Sections 80(a) and 177 of Motor Vehicles Act, '1988 (for short 'MV Acf ).

2. Heard Mr.Mohd. lslamuddin Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.3 as well as Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State.

3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2-Sub lnspector of Police, lodged a complaint against the accused stating that when he along with his staff are conducting vehicle checking at Maitrivanam Junction, Hyderabad, they stopped 4 two-wheeler vehicles, driven by the petitioner along with other accused, without number plate. Thereafter, a case was registered yrde Crime No.794 ! 2 ETD) Ctl.P.No.13452_2025 of 2022 {or the offences punishable under Section 420 rlw.5'l 1 of IPC and llections 80 (a) and 177 of the MV Act.

4. Leirrned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and the allegations leveled against him by respondent No.2, do not constitute any alleged offence. He further submitted that the ingredients of Section 420 rlw. 511 of IPC are not made out, since there are no allegations of cheating and dishonest inducement of victim to deliver any property to any person or make, alter or destroy any part of valuable property. lnsofar as Section 80(a) of the MV Act is concerned, the said Section speaks about the procedure in applying for and granting permissions to the vehicles. The said section rloes not provide any punishment. Further, it is nowhere mentionerd in the Act that driving vehicle without number plate is an offence. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the leamed counsel for the petitioner and submifted that the allegations against the petitioner, requires trial. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.

6. Perrused the record. 3 ETD,] Ctt.P.No,13452_2025

7. Having regard to the submissions made by both the learned counsel and on a perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he drove the vehicle without number plate, which does not come under the purview of Section 420 rlw.51 1 of lPC. Further, the petitioner was also charged for the offence punishable under Section 80 (a) of the MV Act, which speaks about the procedure in applying for and granting permission to the vehicles. Merely driving the vehicle without number plate does not attract the offence under Section 80 (a) of the MV Act. Further, Section 177 oI the MV Act does not attract in this case. Section 39 of the MV Act states necessity of registration and specifies that every vehicle should carry a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner. However, contravention of Section 39 of the MV Act is punishable under Section 192 of the MV Act. So, the present provision does not attract the said offence. Further, the averments in the charge sheet do not constitute the offence as alleged against the petitioner. Therefore, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner amounts to abuse of process of law. Hence, the proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed. 4 ETD,I Ctt.P.No.13452 2025

8. Acccrdingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedin,3s against the petitioner/accused No.3 in C.C.No.8323 of 2022 on the file of the learned lll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrater, Nampally, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.

9. Misoellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Dt.16.10.i1025 JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA