Dismissed

Jagadish Prasad Gupta, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC16 Dec 2025CRLP/16860/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of PRC proceedings against them for offences under Sections 420, 376(2)(n), 504 and 313 IPC, alleging false implication. The court found specific allegations against them fit for trial, dismissed the petition but dispensed with their personal appearance given age and residence in Rajasthan.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; personal presence of petitioners before the trial court dispensed with, subject to counsel appearing on each hearing date and appearance when specifically directed.

Jagadish Prasad Gupta, Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR .THE STATE OF TELANGANA^{AT HYDERABAD}

¶3

TUESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE J SREENTVAS RAO

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 16860 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Jagadish Prasad Gupta,, S/o. Kalyan Sehai^{Guplq,Agedabout. T0Years,} Oct. Business, R/o. Swag PG, Ayyappa Society,^{Madhapur, Native of. 1-69,} Aravali Vihar, Alwar, Rajaithan Sta-te.

¶9

Kantha Guptha, Wo. Jagadish Prasad Gupta^{Aged about. 60 Years, O99'} Housewife,'R/o. Swag PG, Ayyappa Society,^{Madhapur, Native of. 1-69,} Aravali Vihar, Alwar, Rajasthan State

¶10

... PETITION ER/ACCUSED(S)

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public^{Prosecutor, High Court Complex,} High Court of Telangana, at Hyderabad

¶13

2 The Station House Officer, Chanda Nagar^{Police Station,, Cyberabad} Commissionerate, Hyderabad.

¶14

Anuradha Poddar @ Rashi Gupta,,^{Wo. Rohit AgarwalAged about 40 Years,} Occ. Private Employee, R/o. 1-1303,^{Aparna Cyber Life, Near Citizen.} . Hospital, Nallagandia, Ranga Reddy District,^{Telangana.Pres.entlyresiding at} Flat'No. D-402: Aparna Cyber Life,^Near Citizen^{Hospital,Nallagandla, Ranga} Reddy District,

¶15

¶16

.RESPONDENT'COMPLAINANTS

¶17

Petition under Section 528 of^BNSSpraying that^{in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds^{of Criminal Petition, the High Courtmay} be pteased to call for the records relating^{to and connectedwith P.R.C No.10 of} 2025 tor the offences U/s 420, 5O4^{and 313} of^{IPC againstpetitioners/Accused} No. 2 &3 on the file of I Additional^Junior Civil^{Judge-cum-lxAddl.Judicial} Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District^{at Kukatpally, Hyderabadand} quash the same and to pass such other order or orders as the this^{Honble Court} may deem fit and^proper in the interest^{of justice.}

¶18

¶19

t.A. O:1OF 2025

¶20

Petition under Section 529 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminil Fetitio_n, the Hith Cou.t ,"y be- pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in P.R.c No.10 of 2o25for the offences Uls 420,504 and 313 of lpC against ietitioners/Accused No. 2 & 3 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge-Zum-lx Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpaily, Hyderabad, - the petitioner / Accused would be put to irreparable loss and injustice.

¶21

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri BONDEMPALLY RAMULU ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri. Jithender Rao Veeramalla the Additional Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 & 2 and none appeared for the Respondent No. 3.

¶22

The Court made the fottowing: ORDER

¶23

¶24

.,/

¶25

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT} HYDERABAD

¶26

.^{THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICEJ. SREENTVAS RAO}

¶27

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1686O^{of 2O25}

¶28

Datez 16.L2.2O25

¶29

Between :

¶30

Jagadish Prasad Gupta^{and another.}

¶31

...Petitioners/Accused^{Nos.2 & 3}

¶32

AND

¶33

The State of Telangana^{represented by} its Public Prosecutor^{and two others.}

¶34

Respondents

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

This criminal Petition^{has been filed seeking to quashthe} proceedings in PRC^{No.1O of 2025, on the file of I AdditionalJunior} Civil Judge-cum-tX^{Additional JudicialMagistrate of First Class,} Ranga Reddy at Kukatpally,^{wherein petitioners were arrayed as} accused Nos.2 and^{3, registered for the offencespunishable under} Sections 42O, 376^{(2) (n), 504, 313 of IPC.}

¶37

Heard Mr. B.Ramulu,^{learnedcounsel for the petitionersand} Mr. Jithender^{Rao Veeramalla,learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor,} appearing on^{behalf of respondentNos.l and 2'}

¶38

Learned counsel for the^{petitionerssubmits that the} petitioners nh.e not committed^{any offencesand they havebeen}

¶39

¶40

falsely implicated in the present case. Even according to^the allegations made in the complaint as well as in the f,rnal report,^the ingredients for the offence under Sections 42O,376 (2) (n), 5O4, 313 of IPC are not attracted and the entire allegations are levelled against the accused No. 1. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 is clear abuse of the process of law.

¶41

Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioners and that the petitioners were supported the accused No.1 to commit the offence registered for the offences punishable under Sections 42O, 376 (21 (n), 504, 313 of IPC. He further submitted that the petitioners have committed the offences or not, the same has to be revealed by the trial Court after the full-fledged trial. Basing on the grounds which are pleaded in the criminal petition, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings.

¶42

Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that there are specilic allegations levelled against the petitioners to attract the ingredients of Sections 42O, 376 (21 (nl, 5O4, 313 of IPC, whether the petitioners have committed the offences or not, the same has to be adjudicated by the trial Court

¶43

¶44

¶45

after the^{full-fledgedtrial' This Court does not find any ground} to^{quash the proceedings in PRC No'10 of 2025'}

¶46

However,^{taking into consideration the peculiarfacts and} circumstancesandtheageofthepetitioners,whoareToyearsand 60 years^{old and residing in Rajasthan' this Court is inclined to} dispense^{with their presence beforethe trial Court'}

¶47

Accordingly,^{the presence of the petitioners/accusedNos'2} and3inPRCNo.loof2o25,onthefileoftAdditionalJuniorCivil Judge-cum-IXAdditionalJudicialMagistrateofFirstClass,Ranga Reddy^{at Kukatpally' is dispensed with' subjectto the condition} thattheyshallberepresentedthroughtheircounseloneachand everydateofhearingandalsotheyshallappearbeforethetrial Court^{whenever their presence is required. In case of their non-} appearance^{on the specificdate fixed by the trial Court for their} appearance,thetrialCourtisentitledtoproceedwiththematter,in accordance^{with law}

¶48

With^{theabove said directions' the criminal petition ls} dismissed

¶49

Miscellaneous^{aPPlications , pend.ingif anY, shall stand closed}

¶50

SD/^.M.NAGAMANI SISTANT^{REGIST RAR}

/TTRUE^GOPY'/

OFFICER

To,

Addl.^{Judicial Magistrate of First} Hyderabad.

¶55

'^{H;"l:$:ll8lfl iJx;"5311[dliflif'1[]"']'}

¶56

Police^{Station,, CYberabad}

¶57

1. The^{Station House} Officer,^{Chanda Nagar} Commissionerate' Hyderabad.

¶58

¶59

one cc to sRr. BONDEMPALLY RAMULU Advocate [opucl 4. at Two Hyderabad CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, [OUT]. High Court for - the State of TelanganaI

¶60

Two CD Copies

PK/PSL\t

HIGH COURT

DATED:16t12t2025

\ \

,r
-.s
$.
CRLP.No.16860 o!,2 (5
,$, <br>I i"l t

¶68

¶69

CRIMINAL PEITITION IS DISMISSED.

¶70

¶71

4 "dlt
tr6,

Jagadish Prasad Gupta, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagadish Prasad Gupta, 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

Devuni Pruthvi Vs The State of Telangana

Gundla Hanumanthu Vs The State of Telangana

Vittam Praveen Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Raipally Sai Krishna Vs The State of Telangana, through S.H.O., Vikarabad Police Station, Vikarabad District

Golla Sangamesh Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd Yaseen., Vs The State of Telangana