Dismissed

Bhagavan Reddy v. The State of Telangana.

Telangana HC22 Aug 2025CRLP/10709/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition to quash criminal proceedings (C.C. No. 2140 of 2024) under Section 85 BNS, finding that the statement of an independent witness disclosed specific allegations. While the petition for quashing was rejected, the Court dispensed with the personal attendance of the petitioners at the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Personal attendance of petitioners before the trial court dispensed with, subject to representation by counsel.

Bhagavan Reddy Vs The State of Telangana. — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO:^'10709 OF 2025

¶6

Between:

¶7

Bhagavan Reddy, S/o. Thippyreddy Venkat Reddy, Aged about 66 years, Occ: retd. Employee, H.No.2-12715811, Vijayapuri Colony, Near Yellamma Temple Uppal, Hyderabad.

¶8

Suvarna Thippy Reddy, Wo. Thippyreddy Bhagavan Reddy, Aged about: 56 years, Occ: Housewife, H.No.2-12715811, Vijayaguri Colony, Near Yellamma Temple Uppal, Hyderabad.

¶9

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED Nos.2 & 3

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana., through P.S. Balangar, Medchal Malakajgiri District, represented by the Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶12

Smt. D. Narmada, Wo. Thipppyreddy Kaushik Kumar, Aged 28 year, Occ: House wife, H.No.6-841, Raju Colony, Near Suresh Hospital, Balanagar Hyderabad.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS

¶14

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 C.C. No. 2140 of 2024 on the file of XIll Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally, Medical-Malkajgiri District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 85 BNS against the petitioners herein.

¶15

l.A. NO: 1OF 2025

¶16

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 grant stay of all further^proceedings the^personal appearance of the petitioners, as against the petitioner in C.C. No. 2140 of 2024 on the file of Xlll metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally, Medical Malkajgiri District,^pending the disposal of the above Criminal Petition.

¶17

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^{perusing 't e Memorandum of} Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the^{argumers of Sri. JILLELLA} RAJESWARA RAO, Advocate for the Petitioner and the iri.^JithenderRao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Re;pondent^No.1and of None appeared for the Respondent No.2.

¶18

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶19

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTIGE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.l0709 of 202 5

¶20

ORDER;-

¶21

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.2 & 3 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.2140 ot 2Q24, on the file of the learned Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpatly.

¶22

Heard Mr.Jillela Rajeshwar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jitender Rao Veeramalla, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent No.1-State.

¶23

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners herein are the in-laws of the de facfo complainant, and that the husband of the de facfo complainant is accused No.1, is a resident of USA. He further submitted that de facfo complainant never resided with the petitioners herein and is currently living at her parental home. He further submitted that false allegations are levelled against the petitioners. He therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against them.

¶25

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition, submitting that the statement of independent witness has been recorded by the Police and is listed as LW-4 in the charge

¶26

¶27

sheet. The said statement reveals the allegatior s against the petitioners. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the petit< n.

¶28

Perused the record. The statement of indep >ndent witness i.e., LW4, is a part of the record and discloses spr,. ;ific allegations against the petitioners herein. The €se is pen(j ng before the learned Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kt katpally, vide C.C.No.2140 of 2024. Hence, this Court is not inclir ed to interfere with the judicial process. However, the atteo Jance of the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 is dispensed with rcfore the trial Court, unless their presence is specifically requ I :d during the course of trial, provided that they shall be repres lnted by their counsel on every date of hearing.

¶29

Accordingly, this Criminal^petition is disposed c,l

¶30

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall sta rd closed.

¶31

SD/. Ti 3HAVANI SWAMY ASSIS; ANT REGISTRAR

¶32

//TRUE COPYII

¶33

<br>S Ecrroru oFFtcER

¶34

To, 1 The Xlll Metropotitan-Magistrate, at Kukatpally, Cyberabarl. 2. The Station House officei, p"q;; St"ti";'E;i;;;s"r, Medrl at District. t 3. one CC to Sri. JTLLELLA RAJFsWfiiA il?;-niro"rt" [o ,Uc] ],Tr3"t;J:":'ts1Ti^{PRosECUroh,riign"i"in ror the r tlt!'or rerangana}

¶35

Two CD Copies TS/PSLa-

HIGH COURT

DATED: 22108t2O25

ORDER

--".:a-:-1-'- - '
?ra"'-'
//,t
i,:
t'.,
i :) 0 4 Eic 2025
1.'.
<br>'/

¶40

CRLP.No.'10709 of 202S

¶41

CRTMINAL PETITION IS DISPOSED OF

¶42

II $
\0

Bhagavan Reddy v. The State of Telangana.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagavan Reddy v. The State of Telangana.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Chennam Setti Bhavya Shree @ Pippala Bhavya Shree Vs The State of Telangana

Pandeti Anjaneyulu Vs The State of Telangana

Bhoyar Nilesh @ Boyer Nilesh Sambha Vs The State of Telangana

Boini Kanakaraju Vs Jambula Venkat

Cheluvadi Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana

Kilaru Sumana and 4 Others Vs Battula anji and another