Pettugalla Linga Swamy v. The State Of Telangana
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10725 OF 2025 Between:
Pettugalla Linga Swamy, S/o. P. Bheernaiah, Aged 39 years, Occ: Business R/o. H No. 2-59, Velmakanne Village Munugode lMandal, Nalgonda Distirct -508253 And also R/o. Opp. to House No.4J-9-4O|P7, Priyadarshini Colony, Phase-11, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District - 501505.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND
1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at HYderabad ..RESP.NDENT
2. Sudarshi. Venkat Rao, S/o. Lakshmaiah, Aged 48 years,Occ: Business, R/o H No. 3-9-347, Plot N. 22, Saraswathingar Colony, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District - 500074.
...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that i# the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the S.T.C.Nl No. 15 of 202:.3 on the file of The lVAdditional Metropolitan Magistrate Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar by acquitting the petitioner /Accused l.A. NO: 1 OF 2025 ;
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 further proceedings in the S.T.C.NI No. 15 of 2023 on the file of The lV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar including personnel appearance of the petitioner pending disposal of the main quash petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri G ALLABAKASH, Advocate for the Petitioner and SRl. JITHENDER RAO
VEERAMALLA, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri S Viplav Simha Reddy for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER t
I I ) THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA ORDER:- 1.
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in S.T.C.N.l.No.15 of 2023, pending on the file of the learned lV Additio.nal Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, registered for the offence punishable under Sectionl3S of N.l.Act.
2. Heard Sri G.Allabakash, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused as well as Sri Jitender Rao Veeramalla, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1 - State.
3.
Learned petitioner's counsel has submitted that |he petitioner and the defacto complainant have already'entered into compromise on 04.03.2024, but still the defacto complainant is continuing proceedings in the Trial Court and that since the compromise was atready entered, he is not liable to pay any amount to the defacto complainant n"r"in and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
\ be
!--\ --.-] ETD,I Crl.P.No.10725 2025 4.
The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that the compromise deed alleged to have been executed is denied by the defacto complainant and that the petitioner herein is due to pay him towards the fulfillment of legally enforceable debt. Hence, the petition lacks merits and the same may be dismissed. 5.
Perused the record. The STC.N|.No.1S of.2023 is pending before the Court of learned lV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, under Nl Act. The contention of the petitioner's counsel is that compromise was entered on 04.03.2024 and that the petitioner is not due to pay any amount as alleged by the defacto complainant. ln support of his contention, he has filed a copy of Memorandum of Understanding dated 04 03.2024, but the respondent counsel disputes the same. Since the document itself is in dispute and the "orn."f has further expressed their intention to send the said document to Forensic Science Laboratory, the probative value of the document shall be tested during the course of trial. Hence, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. However, the attendance of the petitioner before the Trial Court is dispensed with provided that the petilioner is represented through an Advocate on every date of
ETD,J C.l.P.No-10725_2025 hearing and that he shall be present before the Trial Court whenever his presence is specifically required during the course of trial. 6.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. 7.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. - T.SRINIVASA REDDY ISTANT REGIS \ ,/TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,
1. The lV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar
2. The Station House Officer, Chaitanyapuri Police Station' Chaitanyapuri, Ranga Reddy Diskict
3. One CC to SRI G ALLABAKASH Advocate [OPUC]
4. One CC to SRI S VIPLAV SIMHA REDDY Advocate [OPUC]
5. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI
6. Two CD Copies P VM/PSL
HIGH COURT DATED: 0411112025 I o c RDER RLP.No.'t0725 ol 2025 .::::ra\ 'i.
('
2 trC () I o.
* t :r '-,! T al |l Flo DISPOSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION