Yash Raj Srivastav Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Yash Raj Srivastav Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal Petition disposed of with a direction to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, to dispose of C.C.No.6817 of 2020 at the earliest; attendance of petitioners/accused Nos.2 & 3 dispensed with before the Trial Court subject to representation through an Advocate on every hearing date and personal appearance when specifically required during trial; miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.6817 of 2020 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, are liable to be quashed as against the petitioners/A.2 and A.3. +1 more

Court's answer

The Criminal Petition is disposed of, directing the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, to dispose of C.C.No.6817 of 2020 at the earliest; the quashing prayer was not adjudicated on merits.

Ratio / Principle

The attendance of the petitioners/accused Nos.2 & 3 before the Trial Court is dispensed with, provided they are represented through an Advocate on every date of hearing.

Key takeaways

The petitioners/accused Nos.2 & 3 shall be present before the Trial Court as and when they are specifically required during the course of trial.ratio¶36
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Telangana High Court (Smt. Justice Tirumala Devi Eada) disposed of a Criminal Petition under Section 528 BNSS (with an allied petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) filed by accused Nos.2 and 3 seeking quashing of C.C.No.6817 of 2020 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, registered for offences under Sections 447, 427, 504, 500/506 read with 34 IPC. Without adjudicating the quashing prayer on merits, the Court directed the trial Court to dispose of the case at the earliest, dispensed with the personal attendance of A.2 and A.3 subject to their representation through an Advocate on every hearing date and their presence when specifically required during trial, and closed miscellaneous petitions, if any.

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

CRIMINAL PETITIO NO: 10533 OF 2O2s

Between:

Yash Raj Srivastav, S/o. Sri Prem Narayan, Age. 26 years, Occ. Unemployed, Rio. 20-3-581/'1, Tara Maidan, Hussaini Alam, Hyderabad.

Leela^{Devi, Wo. Sri Prem} Narayan, Age. 81^years, Occ. Retd. Teacher, R/o. 20-3-58111, Tara Maidan, Hussaini Alam, Hyderabad

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No.2 and 3

AND

1 . The State^{oJ Telanggna,} Rep by it's Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.^(Through SHO Hussaini Alam P.S)

Manish^Batnagar, !/o Sf^Ajeeth Kumar Batnagar, Age. 48 years, Occ. Software Englneer, R/o MlG.38, Dharma Reddy Colony, Behind Vijitha Super Market, JNTU, Kukatpally, Hyderabad

...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated^{in the Memorandumof Groundsof Criminal Petition,} the High Court may be^{pleased to quashthe C.C.No.6817 ot 2020} on the file of the Chief Metropolitan^{Magistrate at Nampally,Hyderabad, as} against the^{petitioners/A.2} and A.3^{herein,in the interest.}

2 ?I'FF,

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated^{in the Memorandumof Groundsof Criminal Petition,} the High Court may be^{pleasedto stayall furtherproceedings againstthe petitioners/A.2} and A.3 in C.C.No.^{6817 of 2020 on the file of Hon'bleChief} Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally,^{Hyderabad district, pending disposal} of this Criminal Petition in the interest^{of justice.}

This Petition^{coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of} Grounds^{of Criminal Petition and upon hearingthe arguments of Mrs.Devineni} Radha Rani,^{Advocate for the Petitionerand Sri Erigi Ganesh, AssistantPublic} prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No. l and none appeared for the Respondent^No.2.

The Court^{made the following:ORDER}

1

THE HON'BLE SMT.^{JUSTICEflRUMALADEVI EADA} rit

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition^{is filed under Section528 of Bharatiya} Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita'^{2023 (for short 'BNSS') by the} petitioners/accused Nos'2^{& 3 seekingto quash the proceedings} against them in C.C.No '6817^{of 2O2O'onthe file of the learned Chief} Metropolitan Magistrate,^{Nampally, Hyderabad, registeredfor the} offences^{punishable under Sections447' 427' 504'5OOread with 34} IPC

Heard Smt'Devineni^{RadhaRani' learned counsel for the} petitioners/accused^{Nos'2 & 3 and Sri Erigi Ganesh' the learned} AssistantPublicProsecutorappearingfortherespondentNo.lState

Learned^{counsel for the petitioners has submittedthat the} petitioners^{herein are innocentand have not indulgedin any such} activity^{of demolitionof compound wall as alleged by the de facto} complainant^{and that the land allegedto have been belonging to the} de facto^{complainantis actually an Endowmentpropertywhich} belongs^{to Sri Seeta Ramachandra Swamy Devasthanamand that} when the^{de facto complainant is not the owner of the property' he} .\

..

: '?i:;l"..iie*-,:..rat? ii'tu: r-

2

Efo) c.t.P.No. ro53)-2AS

cannot allege any trespass against the petitioners and therefore prayed to quash the proceedings against them. She further submitted that this is a counter blast case lodged against the petitioners and that the petitioners lodged a conrplaint before Police when the de facto complainant has obstructed the petitioners while they were erecting a gate in their premises.

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has opposed saying that the averments of the charge sheet as disclosed from the investigation of Police would reveal that the petitioners/accused Nos.2 & 3 had demolished the compound wall of lhe de facto complainant and that the statements of witnesses also reveal the said fact.

Perused the record. The allegations point out the offences under Sections 447, 427, 504, 506 read with 34 IPC against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 & 3 herein; C.C.No.6817 of 2O2O is pending on the file of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad and the matter pertains to the year 2020.

Hence, the Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the Court

of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, to dispose of c crltlo.6817 ol 2o2o at the earriest. However, the attendance of

3

a:to,t Ctl.P.No.10533_2025

the petitioners/accused Nos.2^{& 3 is dispensedwith before the Trial} Court provided that the^{petitioners/accused} Nos.2 & 3^are represented through an Advocate on every date of^{hearing and that} they shall be present before the Trial Court as and^{whenthey are} specifically required during the course of^trial.

Miscellaneous petitions^pending, if any, shall stand^closed.

SD/- C.DEEPIKA ASSISTANT^RECISTRAR

//TRUE^COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Chief^{Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally'Hyderabad}

The Station^{House Officer, Hussaini AlamP'S'' Hyderabad City}

One CC^{to Smt. Devineni Radha Rani'Advocate[OPUC]}

Two CCs^{to the Public Prosecutor' High Court for the State of Telangana at} Hyderabad [OUT]

TWo^CDCopies

KK/PSL

t.

HIGH COURT

DATED:1910812025

o

zi

'.: ..<br>J,, '|,
1,,,,'
l.l li..t' 0 3 l;r, ?ltlt
t. -:.
I
'4.
f,'D4T(:tii_.,)

CRLP.No.10533 ot 2025

Disposing of the Criminal Petition

tl ,r{
l