The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, P.S. Nagole, Rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad Forthe State of Telangana. ...RESruNDENT Noj Musku Lokesh Reddy, S/o. Late Musku Sheker Reddy Aged about 35 years, Occ Business, No.2-3-43213, Road No.4, Sri Sao NagaiColony, Nag6le, Hyderabad- Telangana 500060 RESPONDENT No.2/DEFACTO 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 quash the proceedings in C.C NO. 3067 OF 2024 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum- lAdditional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Rangareddy District at L B Nagar for the offences under section 118 (1), 329(4) 352 BNS r/w 3(5) BNS in the interest of Justice l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings of Charge Sheet in C.C NO. 3067 OF 2O24 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Ranga Reddy District at L B Nagar pending disposal of the present Criminal petition in the interest of justice. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri COTIPALLY ANUAG, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri. Jithender Rao Veeramalla the Additional Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEI ANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DE /IEADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.17920 ot 20,2; DATE OF ORDER:- 31.12.2025 Between: Srividya Musku, Wo.Musku Lokesh Reddy, Rl/o.Saroornagar, Hyderabad. ... Petitione,r Accused No.1 AND The State of Telangana rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad & another. Respondents ORDER: 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 5,2 | of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking o quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.1 in rl C.No.3067 of 2024, on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civ I Judge -_cum_l Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Re Jdy District at L.B.Nagar, registered for the offences punishable rr der Sections 1 18(1 ), 329(4) and 352 read with 3(5) of BNS, 2023.

2. Heard Sri C.Anurag, learned counsel for the pet tioner as well as Sri Jitender Rao Veeramalla, the learned Adc tional public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1- State I 2

3. Learned petitioner's counsel has submitted that the petitioner is the wife of the de facfo complainant and that there are certain misunderstandings between the petitioner and the de facto complainant, but no such alleged incident has occurred as mentioned in the complaint and that the petitioner is not at all involved in the said set of allegations. He further submitted that even as per the contents of the complaint, it is the mother of the petitioner who is alleged to have beaten the mother of the de facfo complainant and thus, no offence can be attributed to the petitioner herein. He therefore prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submifted that the proseeution could eolleet the injury eertifieete 6f the mOthef of the de facto complainant and also could examine and record the statements of witnesses which proved that the alleged offences occurred and that the petitioner went along with her mother and brother on the said date of offence to the house of the de facto complainant whereupon the alleged incident has occurred. He therefore prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record. The contents of the complaint and the recitals of charge sheet point out the alleged offences against the accused- The petitioner herein is one of the accused and the I \ \ \ 3 offences include Section 3(5) of BNS, 2023. Admi I ld ly, there are disputes between the petitioner and the de facto cor plainant. The charge sheet would further reveal that the Doctor, rv ro has treated the mother of the de faefo complainant, is listed , s LWB. The strength of the medical evidence and the veracity c,l the witnesses need to be tested during the course of trial. The truttr rr otherwise in the said allegations can be culled out only after a 1r ll-fledged trial. Considering the submissions made by both parties a rd in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is deemed appropr ate to dispose of the Criminal Petition by dispensing with lhe apg,r arance of the petitioner before the Trial Court.

6. Hence, the Criminal Petition is disposed of distrrr nsing with the presence of the petitioner/accused No.1 before I t e Trial Court provided that the petitioner is represented through rrr Advocate on every date of hearing and that she shall be present i -.fore the Trial Court whenever her presence is specifically requ r d during the course of trial.

7. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall sta rd closed. Sd/- B.(.VYJAYANTHI ASSIIJ -ANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// I I ECTION OFFICER '1 . The I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-l Additional Juci ial Magistrate of First Class at L B Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

2. The SHO Nagole Police Station, Rachakonda. 3. One CC to SRl. COTIPALLY ANUAGAdvocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRl. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Advocate [OPU( ] 5. Two CD Capies To I \o ;T HIGH COURT DATED:31 l,1212025 CRLP.No.17920 ot 2025 C)(J 03 FEB lm i .f I SmTC * I