Neeli Chandra Shekar Vs The State of Telangana

¶1

134441

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 952 60F 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Neeli Chandra Shekar, S/o Narayana Age: 39 years, Occ: Police Constable, R/o Flat No. L 303, B-Bloc, Keerthi Sunrise Apartments, Bandlaguda Jagir, Rajendranagar fVlandal, Nacherla village, Mahammad Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, Telangana.

¶9

...Petitioner/Accused No.1

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Represented through Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶12

Sri Kethavath Sreenu Nayak, S/o Gorya Nayak, Age 21 years, Occ: Labourer, R/o Hajilpur Thanda, Nawabpet Mandal, Mahabubnagar District

¶13

...RespondenUDe-Facto Complainant

¶14

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Cou( may be pleased to call for the records relating to C.C. No. 1078 of 2023 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Xl Additional Metropolitan lVlagistrate, Ra.jendranagar and quash the same.

¶15

l.A. NO: 1OF 2023

¶16

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C 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 including the appearance of the petitioners in relation to C.C. No. 1078 of 2023 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-CumXl Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition.

¶17

l.A. NO: 2 OF 12026

¶18

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the Petition, the High Court may be pleased To grant extension of interim orders dtd.0410212026 passed in Vide l.A.NO.1/2026 in CrlP No.9526/2023.

¶19

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N Naveen Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the Additional Public Prosecu:or on behalf of the Respondent No.1 .

¶20

The Court macle the following: ORDER

¶21

/:'

¶22

IN THE HIGH cou RT FOR TH E STATE OF AT YDE

HO E U TIR A

rN tTr o.9 of

TA 202

Between:

Neeli Chandra Shekar

...Petitioner/Accused No.1

¶29

AND

¶30

The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor High Court building, Hyderabad and another

¶31

...Respondents

¶32

o

¶33

This criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1078 of 2O23 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Xl Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar, for the offences under Sections 304(4) and 338 of the lndian penal Code, 1860 and Section 196 of the Motor Vehicle Act.

¶34

Heard Sri N.Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramaila, rearned Additionar Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1_State.

¶35

2

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

¶37

petitionr:r did not commit any act of rash or negligent driving and did not cause the death of the victim in the said accident; hence, the alleged offences under Sections 3044 and 338 of the IPC are not attracted against the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitionr>r is a constable and in the course of his official duties, was driving the police vehicle on the fateful day. He further submittt:d that even according to the statements of the eyewitn,=sses, no offence is made out against the petitioner herein. He also submitted that the petitioner, being a public servant, has been proceeded against without obtaining prior sanctiorr from the competent authority. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner amounts to nothing but an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

¶38

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the stateme'rt of LW.1, lhe de-facto complainant, speaks about the alleged rash and negligent act of the petitioner herein. However, the de-fircfo complainant is not an eyewitness to the incident and is only the brother of the victim. Hence, he prayed to pass apprcpiiate orders.

¶39

3

¶40

5. Perused the record.

¶41

LW.1 is the brother of the victim who allegedly died in the said accident. lt is alleged that the petitioner drove the police vehicle bearing No.TS 09 PA 4316 in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle, as a result of which the deceased died. However, LW.S, who is cited as an eyewitness in the charge sheet, stated before the police that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motorcycle bearing No. AP 29 AG 6621. lf the matter is proceeded with for trial, the evidence of the eyewitnesses would not bring out any new facts attributing rash or negligent driving to the petitioner herein. ln such circumstances, there is no purpose in proceeding with the trial before the trial Court. Hence, in view of the above discussion, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner before the trial Court amounts to nothing but an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed.

¶42

+.^{Accordingly,the Criminal Petition} is^allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.1078 of 2023 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judgercum-Xl

¶43

4

¶44

Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranaga,

¶45

are hereby

¶46

quashed

¶47

[\liscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶48

,