CRLP/16622/2026 of Pondari Yadagiri Rao Vs State of Telangana on 8 October 2026

::ORDER::

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings in F.l.R.No.575 of 2026 of Nacharam Police Station. Malkajgiri Disrrict, registered for the offence punishable under Section 324 (4) of ihe Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha. 2023 (for short'BNS').

2. Heard Mr.S.Sharath Kumar, leamed counsel for the petitioner, and Mr.Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional public Prosecutor for respondent No. I .

3. With their consent, the criminal petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

4. Learnedcounselforthepetitionersubmitsthatthepetitioner has not committed any ol'fence and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The allegations levelled in the complaint are purely civil in nature. The respondent No'2 ought to have approached the competent civil court; cn the other hand' filed the present complaint by giving criminal colour' He further submits that the offences alleged against the petitioner are non-cognizable in nature' Based on the petition and the requisition submitted by the Nacharam Police Station dated 30.09.20?'6' the learned I Additional District Junior Civil Judge-curn-V Adriitional J udicial lVlagistrate of First Class' Uppal at Meclipally. passed a cryptic order dated 05'10'2026' without assigning anv reasons' permitting the Investigating Officer to register acrimefortheoft-enceunderSection324(4)ofBNSandtoconduct an investigation. He further submitted that the order dated 05 '10 '2026 passed by the leamed trial Court is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice.

5. The leamed Adclitional Public Prosecutor fairly submits that the leamed trial court ought to have assigned reasons while granting permission to the Station House Officer on the basis of the application iiled by the SHO. .--_.

6. Having considered the submissions made by respective parties, it is evident that the Inspector of Police, Nacharam Police Station, Medipally. based on the complaint lodged by Respondent No.2, submitted a requisition before the leamed trial Court seeking permission to register a crime and conduct an investigation. The offence alleged against the petitioner under Section 324(4) ofBNS is stated to be non-cognizable in nature. The leamed trial Court, without assigning any reasons, passed a cryptic order dated 05.10.2026, merely stating the word "Permitted". 7 . It is very much relevant to mention here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Biharl. held as under:

19. Beforc we part rvith the case. we feel it necessary to indicate that non-reasoned conclusions by appellate Courts are not appropriate. more so, when views of the lower Court are differed frorn. In case of concurrence, the need to again repeat reasons rnay not be there. lI is not so in case of reversal. Reason is the heartbear of every conclusion. Without the same. it becomes lifeless.

8. In State of Pubjab v. Bhag Singh2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

6. Evcn in respect of administrative orders, Lord Denning, N{.R. in Ercer v. Amalgamated Engg., Linion (1971) I ALL ER I I.18: (1971) 2 QB 175: (1971) 2 WLR 742 (tA) obsen ed: " fhe gir ing of reasons is one of the lundamentals of rl00i) llS(Cr,'. : (roo.) I \(rt 5ir good administration. " In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd., vs. Crabtree [ 1974 ICR 120 (NIRC)] it was observed: "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial ofjustice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question arrd the decision or conclusion arrived at." Reasons substitute subiectiviry by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasc'ns is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face ol the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually irnpossible for the courts to perform their appcllate function or exercise the power ofjudicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an rndispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least suflicient to indicate an application of mind to the matter belbre Court. Anotlrer rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of naturaljustice is spelling out reasons for the order '[he made, in other *ords, a speaking-out. "inscrutable face ofthe sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-jrrdicial performance.

9. Similarly, in State of Rajasthan v. Rajendra prasad Jain3, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that reason is the heartbeat of everv conclusion, and without the same it becomes lifeless.

10. It is relevant to rnention that the leamed trial Court ought to have assigned reasons while granting permission on the basis of the application filed by the Station House Officer. In the case on hand, the leamed trial Court. without assigning any reasons and without application of mind, passed a cryptic one word order, and the same is ' (2008) 15 scc 7|

contrary to the settled principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra) 11, For the foregoing reasons, the impugned docket order dated 05.10.2026 passed by the learned trial Court and consequential registration of the crime in F.I.R. No.575 of 2026 on the file of Nacharam Police Station. Malkajgiri District, against the petitioner, are liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed. However, this ordel will not preclude the leamed trial Court to proceed with the matter basing on the requisition submitted by the Nacharam Police Station dated 30.09.2026, in accordance with law

12. In the result, the criminal petition is disposed of Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed SD/-L VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, (+- '[* SEC OFFICER

1. The I Additlonal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-V Additional Judicial [\/agistrate of First Class. Uppal at Ii/edipally, IVedchal I\/lalkaigiri District

2. The Statron House Officer, Nacharam Police Station, lvlalkajgiri Dtstrtct 3 Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] 4 One CC to Sn S Sharat Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 5 Two CD Copies \,.H,\BK

8. ?

HIGH COURT DATED: 0811012026

ORDER

CRLP.No.16622 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION 3C-eP<\ t+\rr 1:-c A.A (