Jatavath Srinu, v. The High Court Of Telangana

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EAOA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 14648 OF 202s Between:

1. Jatavath Srinu,, S/o. Sakru, Aged about 48 Years, Occ . Agriculture, R/o. Jal Thanda Village, Thirumalgiri (S) Mandal, Nalgonda District.

2. Jatavath Devendhar,, S/o. Srinu, Aged about 26 Years, Occ. Pvt. Employee, Rl/o. Jal Thanda Village, Thirumalgiri (S) Mandal, Nalgonda District.

3. Jatavath Mjaya,, Wo. Srinu, Aged about 40 Years, Occ . Agriculture, R/o. Jal Thanda Mllage, Thirumalgiri (S) Mandal, Nalgonda District

4. Jatavath Soundarya,, Wo. Devendhar, Aged about 22 Years, Occ Housewife, R/o. Jal Thanda Village, Thirumalgiri (S) Mandal, Nalgonda District.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOs I to 4 AND

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

...RESPONDENT no.1

2. Jatavath Nandhini,, Wo. Jawaharlal, Aged about 34 Years, Occ. Anganwadi Teacher, R/o. Jal Thanda Village, Thirumalgiri (S) Mandal, Nalgonda District ...RESPONDENT No.2/Defacto -COMPLAINANT 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 C.C.No.7OO of 2025 in Crime No. 157 of 2025 tor the offences under Section 118(2), 115(2), 352, rlw.3 (5) B.N.S. on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Nidamanooru . l.A. NO: 2 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 Proceedings in C.C.No.700 o'( 2025 in Crime No.

157 of 2025 for the offences under Section 118(2), 115(2), 352, rlw 3 (5) B.N.S. on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Nidamanooru pending disposal of the Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandurn of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. A.Suhas Chary, learned Counsel representing Sri RAPOLU BHASKAR ,Advocate for the Petitioners and the Additional Public Prosecutor (TG/) on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and none for the Respondent No. 2.

The Court made the following: ORDER

I THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.l4648 of 2025 ORDER:- This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.700 of 2025 in Crime No.157 of 2025, on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate at Nidamanooru.

2.

Heard Sri A. Suhas Chary, learned counsel representing Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel forthe petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the leamed Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent No. 1 -State Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners and respondent No.2 are family members and that due to internal disputes within the family, the present complaint has been lodged. lt is only on the sudden provocation that the quarrel ensued and that there is no malicious intention on the part of the petitioners to commit any such offence. Even the eye witnesses are relatives of the respondent No.2, hence, their evidence also cannot be taken into consideration. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioners prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners

4.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the prosecution could examine the evidence of the eye witnesses and also could collect the lnjury Certiflcate which could be tested during the course of trial. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the petition 5.

Perused the record.

6. The recitals of the charge sheet do point out specific allegations against the petitioner under sections 118(2), 115(2\,352 r/w. 3(5) of BNS. The evidences of eye witnesses who are listed as LW-2 to 4 which needs to be tested during the course of trial. LW-8, doctor/medical officer has issued Medical Certificate. The recitals of the charge sheet do point out that LW-'t has received simple injuries whereas LW-S has received grievous injuries. AII these are triable issues which fall for consideration during the course of trial The same cannot be considered as a ground to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. Hence, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the Criminal Petition by dispensing with the presence of the petitioners before the Trial Court.

7.

Hence, the Criminal Petition is disposed of dispensing with the presence of the petitioners/accused before the Trial Court provided tha\the petitioners are represented through an Advocate on every date of hearing and that they shall be present before the Trial Court whenever they are specifically required during the course of trial.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. U.SUDHA ASS TREGISTRAR ).

/ //TRUE COPY// TION OFFICER To, "l . The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Nidamanooru.

2. The Station House Officer, P.S. Thirumalagiri,Nalgonda

3. One CC to SRl. RAPOLU BHASKAR Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies TUPSL {y

HIGH COURT DATED:111'1112025 \..

cj C) 2 4 JAN 2[26 i I *

ORDER

CRLP.No.14648 oI 2O25 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION.

.eddtf *