Partly allowed

Asharnriagari @ Police Madhusudhan Reddy v. The High Court of Telangana

Telangana HC14 Aug 2025CRLP/5376/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Father-son petitioners sought quashing of a sessions case arising from allegations they tied and beat a 14-year-old boy who trespassed on their property, including SC/ST (POA) Act charges. The court found the complaint lacked any averment that accused knew the boy's caste, held the SC/ST Act sections inapplicable, and quashed only those charges while allowing prosecution under IPC and JJ Act secti

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in S.C.No.162 of 2025 quashed to the extent of SC/ST (POA) Act offences; prosecution permitted to continue under Sections 342, 324, 506 IPC and 75 JJ Act.

Asharnriagari @ Police Madhusudhan Reddy Vs The High… — Caste Atrocities | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁸⁵¹

¶2

rN THE^{HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF rE-L11{9ANA} "' iH-uii'$Ai,iii rounrEENrH DAY oF AUGUST ' '"..TWO iHOUSNUO AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOUR ABLE^{SMT JUSTICE K' SUJANA} CRIMINAL PETI^{TION NO:5376 0F 2025:}

¶4

Between:

¶5

1 Asharnriagari @^{PoliceMadhusudhanReddy'S/o. Late Bal Reddy'Aged} about 75^{Years,occ S"";;;iffi'nlo rc"i""nVillage' shabadMandal'} Ranga ReddY^District

¶6

Ranga ReddY^District

¶7

2 Asharnrnagari @Police^{Jaganmohan Reddy' S/o MadhusudhanReddy' Aged} about 48^{Years, Occ' ptit i'pr"V""'-C1",..H} 1,"1-1-21137'^RamNaresh Naoar. Hvdern3sar,^{Kutatp;lrv, tivoli"6'a N/o H' Vo'2-6'Kesaram Village} sniuao Mandal,^{Ranga Reddv,'tt''"I.."=r,,oNERS/AccusED} Nos.1 & 2

¶8

AND

¶9

Judicature^{at Hyderabad,Repby its Public}

¶10

1. The High^{Courtof Telangana'} Prosecutor Respondent^No.1

¶11

2 Beoari Amrutha.^{Wo. Ramulu, Agedabout 35.} Ytllt:^{Occ Agriculture'R/o'} il:;; nill;s;' shabad^{Mandai,Ransa ReddvDistrtct} ...RE;Pbl'iDdNT^{No'i /DEFAcro coMPLAINANT}

¶12

Petition under^{Section 528 of BNSS' 2023 praying tl'l"in the} circumstances^{stated in trr".'''rrrr"moranoumof Groundsof criminal Petition,the} High court^{may be pr"a.ei"to'6unsH't,"pro"."dinosii s.c.No.162of 2025 on} the fite of^{specialLrog" f:r"siidiipiiAln"t / Add'i. sessions Judse court at} L.B.Nagar,^{RangaReddY District;}

¶13

tA!+ffi'?:::er section 482 or cr'P'c pra.vlrs that in the. t"'T111""t stated in^{the Memorandr;;i i;;.} oicriin"i^{pJtition,theHigh court mavbe} oleased to^{sTAy ot att turtier-pio"u"aing. in s c.No.162 of 2025on the file of} ffi#l^{jra"g;'i".. s;siii;o,ni n", eair. sessions Judgecourt at L.B.Nagar'} Ranga ReddY^{District ;}

¶14

This Petition^{coming on for hearing'upon perusingthe Memoran9lTof} Grounds of criminal^{petiti-on and upon hearingthe arguments of Sri} .RAPOLU BHASKAR,AdvocateforthePetitionersandSriMVivekanandaReddy'Asst FLOii"^{p."""utor on behalf of the RespondentNo' 1 and none appear for the} Respondent^No.2

¶15

The Court made^{the following: ORDER}

¶16

¶17

)

¶18

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶19

CRIMINAL PETITION No.SB76 OF 2O2S

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

This criminal petition is filed by the petitioners seeking the Court to quash the proceedings initiated against them in S.C.No. 162 of 2O2S on the file of the Special Judge for SC/ST (POA) Act cum Additional Sessions Judge Court at LB.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 324,5O6 of IpC, 75 of JJ Act, 3(2)(v)(a), 3(l)(r)(s) of sc/ST (poA) Acr.

¶22

The brief facts of the case of prosecution are that a 14 year old boy, Begari yadagiri, allegedly trespassed onto police Madhusudhan Reddy's property in Kesaram Village, Shabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, to pluck a pomegranate, and when he was caught, he reportedly beat the boy and tied him with a rope. The boy's friends, who were with him, ran away when they saw one Reddy approaching. The de facto complainant who is boy,s mother, Begari Amrutha, was informed about the incident by a villager named premalatha and immediately went to the spot to fetch her son. When she

i )

arrived,^{she claims that Reddycursed her' and Reddy's son} who is^{petitionerNo'2' scolded her' Two days later' Amrutha} Itled^{a complaint beforethe Shabad Police Station'leading to} the^{registrationof a case againstthe petitionersfor the} offences^{as alleged'Aggrievedthereby' this criminal petition} k is trled.

¶27

Heard^{SriRapoluBhaskar' learned counselfor} petitioners,^{and Sri M'Vivekanada Reddy' learned Assistant} public^{prosecutorfor respondent No.1- state. None appeared} for resPondent^No'2'

¶28

4 . Learrrcd^{counselfor petitioners submitted that the} petitioners^{never committed any offenseas allegedby the de} facto^{complainant and that the} l="'-^{complaint is false and not} maintainable^{in law' He conteffi'thatthe complainant's} stole^{money and fruits'} son trespassed^{into their hou"t#} and even^{when he was caught' the petitionersdid not file a} complaint^{out of maturity'considering the boy's young age'} The petitioners^{argue that the complaintwashled with false} allegations^{to harassthem'He iamented that the complaint is} barred^{by deiay, as it was hled three days after the incident'}

¶29

)-.--'"

¶30

¶31

and that apart, the Sections inr.oked, including Sections 342, 324 rPC, and the sc/sr Act, are not appricable in this case, as there is no evidence to support the ailegations. He averred that the petitioners did nq1 detain or abuse the complainant,s son on the basis of caste due to which the SC/ST Act is not maintainable. Therefore, he prayed this Court to allow the Criminal petition, quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioners.

¶32

On the other hand the learned Assistant public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the submissions made by iearned counsel for petitioner ancl contended that basing on the averments made in the complaint, whereunder, serious allegations are leveled against the petitioners, the proceedings were initiated, implicating them as accused for the offences as alleged. While advocating thaL the matter requires full fledged trial, he prayed this Court to dismiss the Criminai Petition

¶33

Having regard to rival submissions made, and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that the petitioners are father_son duo against whom allegations are

¶34

¶35

leveledthattheytiedthesonofcomplainant/LW.2witha rope and^{beat him' By seeing the same'the LWs'4 to 6} attempted^{to releaseLW 2 but petitionerNo' 1 did not accept} the same,^{and thereafter'LW'l went to the scene of offence} and requested^{the petitionerNo' 1 to reieaseLW '2 aod on that} the^{petitioner No'2released LW 2 but abusedthem in hlthy} language^{and threatened them' That being so' it cannot be} said that^{there are no allegations against the petitioners for} the offences^{punishable underSections 342' 324'506 of IPC'} 75 of^{JJ Act.}

¶36

medical^{certificate/injurycertihcate} 7. That aPart,^the by the^{learned AdditionalPublic} d,ated'^{26.06'2024 filed} Prosecutor^{would showthat the injuriesare simpie in nature'} Therefore,^{that part of the offences have to be adjudicated by} the trial^{Court' However'it is noticedthat in the complaint} averments^{there is no mentionthat the petitionerswere} aware^{of the caste of victim' as such' this Court is of the} considered^{view thatitheoffencespunishable under Sections} 3(2Xv)(a),^{3(1)(r)(s)of SC/ST(POA) Act' are not applicable to} the petitloners.

¶37

¶38

That being so, in the result, this Criminal petition is partly allowed, quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in S.C.No. 162 of 2025 to the extent of offences punishable under Sections 3(2)(v)(a), 3(t)(r)(s) of SC/ST (pOA) Act, while permitting the prosecution to proceed further against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 324,506 of IpC, 75 of JJ Act, in accordance with law

¶39

Misceilaneous petitions, pending, it any, shall stand closed

¶40

¶41

//TRUE COPYII

¶42

sD/ASSlE;?iYAt3,!1,ffiF -- -'v ' ''Fr.- I o 1..'i SECTION OFFICER

¶43

To,

¶44

1 2 J 4. 5. VSM/ $**:$ffiikti'm#*fl#filH#'

HIGH COURT

DATED:14 tOBtzO2S

T4 e
(.r
25AUEzffi
\ ,..i o?.
"v
O5 q -/, -,- !..

¶49

ORDER

¶50

CRLP.No.5376 of ZO2S

¶51

PARTLY^{ALLOWING TIIE CRTMINALPETITION}

¶52

M
a

Asharnriagari @ Police Madhusudhan Reddy v. The High Court of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asharnriagari @ Police Madhusudhan Reddy v. The High Court 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

Vankudothu Mangamma alias Mangi Guguloth Vs The State of Telangana

Gantenapalli Babu Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Sri. Ramesh Babu Vs The State of Telangana

Shaik Mehraj Patel Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd. Ahmed @ Zubair @ Ali @ Mohammed Vs The State of Telangana

Fahmida Khatun, Vs The State of Telangana