Putta Prasad Vs The State of Telangana

¶1

13217 |

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9950 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

'l . Putta Prasad, S/o Subbaiah, Aged 54 years, Caste. Yadav, Occ. Business, R/o Villa No. 271, Vision Unjith, Osman Nagar, Telapur, Sanga Reddy dist, N/o H.No.3/481, YMR Colony, Proddutur, Kadapa dist, Andhra Pradesh State.

¶9

Manne Damodar Reddy, S/o Late Muthyam Reddy, Aged 54 years, Caste. Reddy, Occ. Business, R7o.H.No.6-25, Saddupally (V), Taramatipet GP, Abdullapurmet (M), Ranga Reddy district.

¶10

Nalliboina Balaveeraiah @ Veeraiah, S/o Chinna Veeraiah, Aged 36 years, Caste. Yadav, Occ. Employee of PSK Damber Plant, Saddupally, R/o H.No.78, Taramatipet (V), Abdullapurmet (M), Ranga Reddy dist, N/o Ramachandra Puram (V), B- Matam (M), Kadapa dist, Andhra Pradesh State,

¶11

Poojala Venkata Ramanaiah @ Rarnana, S/o Chowdaiah, Aged 32 yrs, Caste. Thogata (BC-B), Occ. Store Assistant of PSK Damber Plant, Saddupatly, R/o Taramatipet (V), Abdullapurmet (M), Ranga Reddy dist, N/o H.No. 07/83, Ramasamudram (V), B-Koduru (M), Kadapa dist, AP State,

¶12

Sunkara Kasavayya @ Chinna, S/o Late Dongayya, Aged 35 years, Caste. Goud, Occ. Vehicle ln-charge of PSK Damber Plant, Saddupally, R/o Taramatipet (V), Abdullapurmet (M), Ranga Reddy dist, N/o H.No. 2-121, Chinna Venkatapuram (V), Kotabommali (M), Srikakulam dist, AP State.

¶13

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 5

¶14

AND

¶15

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

¶16

Sri. Kandadi Ashok Reddy, S/o Yadi Reddy, Aged 62 years, Occ. Business, R/o Sy.No. 203, Saddupally (V), Abdullapurmet (M), Ranga Reddy district.

¶17

Sri. Garlapati Jayasimha Reddy, S/o Keshava Reddy, Aged 57 years, Caste Reddy, Occ. Business, R/o Villa No.22, River Edge Villas, Manchirevula^(V), Narsingh (M), Ranga Reddy District,

¶18

,..RESPON DENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶19

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may

¶20

nq

¶21

be-pleased to quash the proceedings against the petitiorers in C.C.No.504 of 2024 on the file of xlv Additionar Metroporitan Magistrate lrayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶22

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2o2s

¶23

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that .r the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petitior , the l-.ligh court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings against the petit c ners in d.c. ruo.soa ot 2024 on the file of XIV Additional lr/etropolitan trilagistrate llayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District, pending disposal of the criminal petition

¶24

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing rhe Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri E v pusHpA VARDHAN, Advocate for the petitioners and SRI JITHENDER RAO vEERAMALLA, the Additionar pubric prosecutor for the Ire:spondent No..r and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2.

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

I t

¶27

I I

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

¶29

CRIMINAL PETITION No.9950 of 2025

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

This petition is filed under Section 528 ot Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashment^.of the proceedings in C.C.No.504 of 2024 pending on the file of the learned XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Hayathnagar, Rangareddy District, against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5

¶32

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State

¶33

The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 5 in C.C.No.504 of 2024 facing accusation under Sections 447, 427,504, 506, 109 riw 34 of IPC

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that though the petitioners got a strong case even for quashment, as they are determined to see the process through, the insistence for their presence is causing severe difficulty in pursuing their occupations and avocations. Therefore, prayed for dispensing their personal appearance in the proceedings, unless presence in person is required and such direction would redress their grievance.

I I

2

:i

lt

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there is no specific objection for the prayer, however pleaded^.cr a direction for appearance of the petitioners on the material stages in tf,e proceedings.

¶40

Having regard to the submissions, subject tc the petitioners appearance through their counsel on every adjournrn -=nt and physical presence as and when directed by the Court, the in_person presence of the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5 in the proceedings of the c.c.No.504 of 2024 pending on the file of the learned XIV Additionar Metropolitan Magistrate, Hayathnagar, Rangareddy District, is dispensed with. Additionally it is specified that any lapse in abiding thr; above conditions would render this order ineffective.

¶41