The High Court · 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 appearance of the petitioners/2 and 6 in C.C.No.2156 ot 2024 on the file of X Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Secunderabad and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. a This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri IKRAM HUSSAIN MATEEN, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared forthe Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.17368 of 2025 Date:22.L2.2O25 Between Kishan Singh Hazari and another The State of Telangana, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad and another AND .Petitioners ...Respondents ORDER This criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in c.c.No.2156 of 2024, on the file of the learned X Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Secunderabad, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 6, for the offences punishable under Sections 188 of Indian penal Code and Section 2t /76of City Potice ect.

2. Heard Mr.Ikram Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, rearned Additional public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1-State.

3. Learned,* counser for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not committed any offence and have been falsely a I I I I I 2 implicated in the present case. He submitted that accused No.7 (r had approached this Court by filing Criminal Petition No.B534 of 2025 seeking quashment of the very same proceedings 1n C.C.No.2156 of 2024. This Court was pleased to allow the said Criminal Petition on 1O.O7.2O25 and quashed the proceedings against the petitioner therein. Therefore, the petitioners herein are entitled for the very same relief. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not disputed the

5. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the very same allegations are levelled against accused No.7. Accused No.7 filed Crl.P.No.8534 of 2025 and this Court uide order dated 1O.O7.2025, quashed the proceedings against accused No.7 by allowing the said Criminal Petition. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that a the petitioners are entitled for the very same relief and the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.2156 of 2024, on the file of the X Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Secunderabad, are liable to be quashed. e.-" \ a' 3

6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 6 in C.C.No.2156 of 2024, on the file of the X Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Secunderabad are herebv quashed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if an], shall stand closed To, SD/. P. N USHAMBA REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// N OFFICER 1 The X Additionat Chief Judicial Magistrate at Secund erabad 2. The Station House Officer, Police Station, Domalguda, 3. Two CCs to public Prosecutor, High Court for the State 4. One 5. Two Hyderabad CC to CD Copies (our) SRI IKRAM HUS SAIN MATEEN, Advocate (OPUC) Hyderabad of Telangana at TPI(Sa !. a --.-r ; t {F-+lqa,tilg ,l n . 6 \ t \r:'ilb €.. I o"S', HIGH COURT DATED'.2211212025 o RDER RLP.No.17368 of 2025 o(J t * S 0 g ii,rl ?I?fi -L t a Ft I]VIINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI GRIMINAL PETITION No. 8534 of 2025 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'the BNSS') seeking quashment of the proceedings in C.C.No.2156 of 2024 pending on the file of the learned X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, against the petitioner/accused No.7.

2. I have heard Mr.B.A Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner, Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State

3. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.8 in C.C.No.2156 of 2024 facing accusation under Section 188 of IPC and Section 21176 of CP Act. t

4. The brief facts of the case are that on 22.09.2023 at approximately 18:00 hours, the.respondent No. 2/Sub-lnspector of Police, Domalguda Police Station, lodged a complaint alleging that credible information had a been received indicating the operation of an illegal massage parlour under the name 'Yantra Spa,' situated at H.No.3-6-5241N6, Zee Plaza, Oriental Bank Comptex, opposite Minerva Coffee Shop, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad. lt was reported that the establishment was functioning without requisite legal authorization. 2 Acting on this information, respondent No. 2 prompfly informed his superior officers and obtained authorization to conduct a search. He, along with his team, proceeded to the location and conducted a raid, during which four female workers and eight male individuals were found on the premises. Upon preliminary inquiry, it was revealed that the establishment lacked licensed physiotherapists and failed to maintain a mandatory register as required for massage centres. Furthermore, it was discovered that 'cross massages' were being conducted in violation of operational norms. Subsequently, an investigation was carried out, and a charge sheet was filed. The petitioner was arrayed as Accused No. 7 and charged under Section 188 of the lndian Penal Code (lpC) and Sections 21 and 76 of the City Police Act (CP Act).

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was merely a customer who had visited the said.massage centre for the first time, with the sole intention of availing a cross massage service. lt was argued that the petitioner had no knowledge of any illegality associated with the operations of the massage parlour. Furthermore, it was a emphasized that neither the First lnformation Report (FlR) nor the charge sheet contained any specific allegations against the petitioner that would warrant his prosecution under section 1gg lpc or the aforementioned provisions of the CP Act. Therefore, the invocation of these penal k, 3 provisions against the petitioner was contended to be unsustainable in law.

6. Conversely, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the allegations against the petitioner merit judicial scrutiny through the trial process, and accordingly, sought dismissal of the criminal petition.

7. I have perused the material on record. 8: Having considered the rival submissions and upon careful examination of the material placed on record, it is observed that the petitioner has been arrayed as Accused No. 7 in connection with the alleged offences punishable under Section 188 of the lndian Penal Code (lPC) and Sections 21 and 76 of the City Police Act (CP Act).

9. lt is pertinent to note that prosecution for an offence under Section 188 IPC can only be initiated by way of a written complaint filed by the concerned public servant before a competent Court, as mandated under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This provision expressly prohibits the Court from taking cognizance of such an offence a in the absence of a formal complaint filed by the public servant whose lawful order is alleged to have been disobeyed. Therefore, in the absence of such a compliant filing procedure, the prosecution under Section 188 IPC is legally untenable as against the petitioner. 4

10. Additionally, the record does not disclose the examination of any independent witnesses who could confirm that any individual was obstructed, restrained, or otherwise disturbed due to the alleged conduct of the petitioner. Further scrutiny of the case record reveals no material to substantiate the invocation of Sections 21 and 76 of the CP Act against the petitioner.

11. The contents of the complaint, when taken at face vatue, primarily allege that the management of Yantra Spa Massage Centre failed to maintain a register recording customer visit details, including names, dates of visits, and verifiable addresses. This allegation pertains to administrative non-compliance on the part of the establishment and does not, per se, implicate the petitioner individually.

12. Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed retiance on the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminat Petition No. 11269 of 2024, dated 27.09.2024, wherein under similar circumstances, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings against the accused therein. ! I

13. ln view of the above circumstances, particularly in light of the binding precedent set by the order dated 27.09.2024, and considering the lack of legal foundation for continuing the proceedings against the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that continuation of the criminal case against the petitioner would amount to abuse of the judicial process. Y 5

14. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner/Accused No. 7 in C.C. No. 2156 of 2024 pending before the learned X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, are herebY quashed. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed Date: 10.07.2025 CHS JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI t, )