Disposed

Pendyala Prakasham alias Prakash v. Sri Thurpunoori Jangaiah

Telangana HC10 Nov 2025CRLP/9490/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil contractor accused of causing grievous hurt by blasting rocks without permission sought to quash sessions case proceedings under Section 338 IPC and the Explosive Substances Act. The court found prima facie allegations and held veracity must be tested at trial, disposing of the petition with directions for early trial.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; trial court directed to dispose of the case at the earliest; petitioner's attendance dispensed with if represented by counsel on every hearing date.

Pendyala Prakasham alias Prakash Vs Sri Thurpunoori… — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

l3nna7

¶2

IN THE HIGH OOURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT

¶3

MONDAY, THE TENTH DAYOF NOVEMBER TWOTHOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SiTTJUSNCE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

¶6

7TIFIi,

¶7

Between:

¶8

Prikasham alias Prakash, S/o. Sangaiah, Aged about 56^years, Cast. Occ:Civil Contrador, R/o.Near Telephone Exchange. Mkarabad, Ranga Districf.

¶9

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.l

¶10

flNt

¶11

Sri Thurpunoori Jangaiah, S/o Mallesh, Age 39 Caste. Goud, Occ.Business, R/o Block NO.^'119/3, JNNURM ,^{Abdullapurmet village,} Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District,

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Telangana, at Hyderabad.

¶13

...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶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 the proceedings in S.C. No. 573 of 2018 the file of ON THE FILE OF lN THE COURT OF I ADDL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, RANGAREDDY, L.B.NAGAR. for the offence U/s 338 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Explosive Substances act 1908 Act, against the Petition€r /Accused-l and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and^proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶15

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 Stay of all fu(h€r proceedings including arrest, and appearance of the Petitioners/Accused No f . in S.C. No. 573 of 2018 the^{file of ON THEFILE} OF IN THE COURT OF HON'BLE I ADDL ASSISTANT SESSIONS^JUDGE, RANGAREDDY. L.B.NAGAR. for the offence U/s 338 of IPC and Section 3 and⁴

¶16

of Explosive Substances act 19oB Act pending disposal of the criminal petition and to pass

¶17

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri MUNUGA SATEESH ,Advocate for the Petitioner and sri. Jithender Rao Veeramalla the Additional Public Prosecutor (TG/Ap) on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2.

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE TTRUMALA^{DEVI EADA}

¶20

CRIMI NAL PETITION No^{.9490 of 2025}

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This Criminal Petition is filed by the^{petitioner-accusedNo.1} seeking quash the^proceedings in SC No.573^{ot 2018 on the file of} Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Ranga^{Reddy,L.B. Nagar for} the offences under Sections 338 IPC^{and 3 and 5 of Explosive} SubstancesAct, 1908.

¶23

Heard Mr.Munuga Sateesh,^{Iearnedcounsel for the} petitioner and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned^Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.2-State.

¶24

Learned counsel for the^{petitionerhas submitted that the} petitioner is accused No.1 and he is a civil contractor,^carryhgout blasting of rocks as^per the works^{entrustedby the GHMC.The} contract order of the GHMC isⁱⁿ favour^{of Kaveri Polymersand that} neither the main contractor nor the^{GHMCare made as accusedin} the case and it is only the^{petitioner herein, who is a civilcontractor,} is facing the false allegations and^{hence, prayed to quash the} proceedings.

¶25

)

¶26

¶27

EAJ Cn,P.lb.ta*ol tu25

¶28

Learned Additionat public prosecutor has submitted that it is the Kaveri porymers, which entered into a contract with the GHMC, but the stamp paper on which the said agreement deed is written, is purchased by the petitioner for Kaveri polymers. He further submifted that since the petitioner is associated with t(averi Polymers and the blasting operations were canied on under his supervision, the pelitioner is arrayed as accused No.1 and therefore, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶29

Perused the record.

¶30

The petitioner is alleged to have involved in causing grievous hurt to LWs.9 and 10 by using explosive substanceS for blasting the rocks without having any permission from the concemed authorities and without taking any precaulionary measures at the time of blasting. Thus, pnma facie the allegations poht out the offences under Sections 33g lpC and 3 and S of Explosive Substiances Act, 190g against the petitioner herein. LWs.2 to 9 are listed as eye-witnesses, while LW.10 is shown to be the injured witness. LW.15 is the doctor, who issued Medical Gertificate on treating LW:10. Further, the agreement bond submitted by the petitimfr points out that there is an agreement between Kaveri Polymers and the GHttIC to carry out the contract works and the said

¶31

¶32

Elo) CaLP.,,or,,ro^ol dr6

¶33

stamp^paper is^{purchased by the petitiorrcr herein.Thus, it shows} that the^petitioner is associated^{with the tGveri Polymers, which} strengthens the argument of^{the learned AdditionatPublic} Prosecutor. Thus, the^{veracity of the witnesses and the truth or} otherwise in the allegations^{can be tested during the couriie of trial.} Hence, it is deemed^{appropriateto dispose of the petitionby} directing the trial court to^{dispose of the mafterat the earliest and by} dispensing with the attendance^{of the petitioner before the trial court.}

¶34

Accordingly, the Criminal^{Petitionis disposedof directing} the trial court to dispose^{of the caseat the earliestand dispensing} with the aftendance^{of the petitioner before the trial court, provided} he is represented by^{a counselbefore the trial court on every date of} hearing and he shall appear^{beforethe triat court wheneverhis} presenoe is required during the course^{of trial.}

¶35

Miscellaneous Petitions,^{if any pending, shall stand closed'}

¶36

¶37

Sd/. P.C.SULEKHADEVI ASSISTAT.IT REGISTRAR /,TRUE COPY'/ G

¶38

SECNON OFFICER

¶39

¶40

The I ADDL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, RANGAREDOY,^L.B.NAGAR Ranga Reddy District.

¶41

The Vll Metropolitan Magistrate at Hayathnagar, Cyterabad^City.

¶42

The SHO Hayathnagar Polioe Station,^{Ranga Reddy District.}

¶43

One CC to SRl. MUNUGA SATEESH Advocate IOPUCI

¶44

Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,^{HEh Courtfor the Stateof Telangana} at Hyderabad IOUTI

¶45

W 6. Two CD Copies

PK,/PR

HIGH @URT

DATED:10111t2025

CRLP.No.9490 of 2025

tIHE ST^II
(
(.--)
O g JAN rllb
i;'.::

¶51

DISPOSING THE CRIMINAL PEITITION

Pendyala Prakasham alias Prakash v. Sri Thurpunoori Jangaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pendyala Prakasham alias Prakash v. Sri Thurpunoori Jangaiah

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

Ravula Venkanna Vs The State of Telangana

Shaik Jameel Vs The State of Telangana

Pillalamarri Rajesh Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Khajim Ali, Vs the State of Telangana

Smt. Kotikalpudi Parvathi Pallavi Vs The State of Telangana

Badavath Raja, Vs The State of Telangana.