Heard Ms.T.Dhana Lakshmi, learned counsel representing Sri v. Rajashekar Reddy

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 relating to and connected With Sessions case No.72 of 2025 on the file of learned Special Judge for trial of Cases under SCs/STs PoA Act-cum-ll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad in Cr.No.143 oI 2025 of Town lll Police Station, Nizamabad, for the offences under Sections 351 (2), 292 rlw 3(5) of BNS, Section 3(1) ( r) (s) of SC/ST POA Act and quash the same against the petitioners-Al to A3. l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that ir stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, t be pleased to order stay of all further proceedings in with S€ of 2025 on the file of Special Judge for trial of Cases unde. cum-ll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad irr of Town lll Police Station, Nizamabad, for the offences undr: 292 rlw 3(5) of BNS, Section 3(1) ( r ) (s) of SC/ST pOA appearance, pending the disposal of the main Criminal petitic r the circumstances re High Court may ;sions case No.72 3Cs/STs PoA Act- lr.No.143 ot 2025 Sections 351 (2), \ct including their This Petition coming on for hearing upon perusing t r r Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argume r ts of Ms T.Dhana Lakshmi, Advocate, representing Sri VONJARI RAJA SHEKAT REDDY VENKAT RAM REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri Jithencr r.Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Responden No.1, and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEViEADA cRr MINAL PET!TION No.17755 of 2025 Date: 30.12.2025 Between: Bharat Thakkar and others ...Petitioners AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public prosecutor, High Court Buidling, Hyderabad and another .Respondents ORDER This Criminal petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for sho( ,BNSS,) the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in S.C.No.72 of 2O2S on the file of Spl. Judge for trial of cases under SCs/STs poA Act _ cum _ ll Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 351(2) and 292 r/w.3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2O23 (for short ,BNS,) Section 3(1)(r[s) of SC/ST (poA) Amendment Act_2015.

2. Heard Ms.T.Dhana Lakshmi, learned counsel representing Sri V. Rajashekar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and I I \ \ 2 \ ETD, J Crl.P 17755 2025 Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Addil onal Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1_

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners subn i ted that the petitioners are in business transactions with respon< ent No.2 and that there is no truth in the allegations. She further s :bmitted that initially the case was registered under Sections 3 , 8(4), 316(2), 351(2) and 292 rlw.3(S) of BNS and Section 3(1)(" 's) of SC/ST (PoA) Amendment Act-2015 and that after <;r mpletion of investigation the Police have dropped Sections 31gi , ) and 316(2) of BNS due to lack of evidence, that itself shows ttri t there is no case at all and that there is no specific allegations c attract the offences under Sections 351(2) and 292 r/w.3(S, rf BNS and also under Section 3(tXrXs) of SC/ST (poA) Am: rdment Act-

2015. Therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein.

4. The learned Additional public prosecutor he ; submitted that Police recorded statements of eye-witnesse s during the course of investigation and that they have colle:ted ample evidence to prove the offences against the petitio ers herein, I 1 3 ETD, J Crl.P 17755 ?O25 which is to be tested during the trial. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The allegations in the complaint and the recitals of the charge sheet reveal that the petitioners abused the complainant in the name of Caste and also threatned him with dire consequences.

7. According to the submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Police have also recorded statements of eye_ witnesses during the course of investigation and that they have collected ample evidence to prove the offences against the petitioners herein, which is to be tested during the trial.

8. Therefore, the veracity of the statement of the witnesses and also the truth or otherwise of the allegations can be culled out only after a full fledged trial. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to dispense with the preserrce of the petitioners before the trial Court.

9. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is disposed of dispensing with the presence of the petitioners before the trial court provided \ { I 4 ETD, J Crl.P 17755 2025 (- that they are represented by a counsel before thr; trial court on every date of hearing and shall appear before t re trial court whenever their presence is required during the cour.l e of trial. Pending miscellaneous applications, if an y shall stand closed. Sd/. ] .C.SULEKHA DEVI ASSIS TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ;ECTION OFFICER To l Additional Districit and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad 1 The SDecial Judqe for trial of Cases under SCs/STs P: \ Act-cumll Z. fne Siitio" House Officei- ttLamaUaf townlll Police S;1 rtion, Nizamabad. 5. i;; CE; b ir,e prntic Prosecutor, High Court for the Stirl ) of Telangana at 4. oir;-ca io Snt Von.lnnt RAJA SHEKAR REDDY vENf \T RAM Hyderabad [OUTI REDDY Advocate [OPUC]

5. Two CD CoPies I I.TVB/BA HIGH COURT DATED:3011212025 ORDER CRLP.No.17755 of 2025 .ItTE SIA ;( l3 rrs t6 9 * DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITIOI{ t?, Ire1