CRLP/12924/2024 of Bommakanti Bhaskar, Vs The State of Telangana on 6 February 2026

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners' who are arrayed as the accused Nos.'l and 6, seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against thern pursuant to the impugned order dated 04.03'2024 passed in CRL.M.P.No.148 of 2021in Crime No.389 of 2017' whereby the case was taken cognizance of and numbered as C.C.No.467 ot 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile Court), Karimnagar' for the alleged offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the lndian Penal Code (for short, 'lPC').

0"7-- Heard sri D.Bhaskar Reddy, rearned counser foi the petitioners and sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, rearned Additional pubric prosecutor for the state-respondent rrro.1 as welr as sri B. Arjun Rao, rearned counser for the responclent No.2. perused the record. 03' Learned counser for the petitioners-accused Nos.1 arrd 6 submits that the petitioners have no invorvement whatsoever in the allegecl offences. lt is contended that the respondr-"nt No.2 rodged a compraint in crime/FrR No.3g9 of 2017 before the Karimnagar-rr rown porice station against the accused Nos.1 to 6, incruding the present petitioners_ accused Nos-1 and 6, for the offences under sections 420, 468 and '471 of rpc. The respondent No.2 herserf requested the Polic'e to drop the proceedings against the accused persons- The porice had fired a finar report crosing the case against ail the accused persons i.e. accused Nos.1 to 6. subsequernfly, the respondent No.2 fired a protest petition after an inordinate and unexprained deray. rt is further submitted that the rearned Magistrate rnechanicaily took cognizance of the case sorery on the basis of the protest petition and the statements of the respondent No'2 and two other witnesses, without issuing any notice to or affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners prior to taking cognizance. lt is contended that the learned Magistrate failed tb consider the inordinate delay in filing the protest petition, for which no explanation whatsoever was offered by the respondent No.2. Hence, he prayed to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos'1 and 6.

04. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent No'1 as well as learned counsel for the respondent No'2 contended that there is no illegality or irregularity committed by the learned trial Court and there are triable issues and factual aspects to be examined by the learned trial Court and it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioners at this juncture and the matter is to be decided after conducting trial by the learned trial Court and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition.

C)5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and upon due consideration of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side, it is evident from the record that, pursuant to the complaint lodged by the respondent No.2, the police conducted an investigation, during the course of which the respondent No.2 submitted a written representation to the police requesting that the proceedings against the accused persons be dropperJ. Consequently, the police filed a final report dated 22.07.2019, closing the case by classifying it as a .mistake of fact.' lt is also borne out from the record that the accused personsi are already facing trial on the very same set of facts and allegations in Crime No.222 of 2OOT, which cutminated in C.C.No.1431 of 2016. 0€;. lt is further pertinent to note that the protest petition 'was filed by the respondent No.2 only on 07.O1.2021, after an inordinate and unexplained clelay of more than one year, which casts serious doubt on the genuineness and veracity of the allegations made therein. ln such a peculiar factual matrix, where the respondent No.2 herself had \

stt requested the police to drop the proceedings and subsequently chose to file a protest petition, the learned Magistrate proceeded to take cognizance of the case solely on the basis of the protest petition, without issuing notice to, or affording an opportunity of hearing to, the respondents- accused.

07. A perusal of the impugned cognizance order dated 04.03.2024 reveals that, except for a bald and mechanical reference to the recording of the sworn statement of the respondent No.2 and the statements of two other witnesses, the learned tt/tagistrate has failed to record any reasons or prima facie findings warranting the taking of cognizance. The impugned order thus clearly suffers from non-application of judicial mind to the material available on record.

08. ln view of the aforesaid circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion that the learned Magistrate has not applied judicial mind while passing the impugned order. Consequently, the criminal proceedings initiated against the \

petition'ers-accused Nos.1 and 6 vide the impugned order dated 04.03-2024 passed in cRL.M.p.No. 14g of 2o2larising out of orime No.3gg of 2017 are unsustainabre in raw and amount to an abuse of the process of court. Accordingry, the impugneid order is liable to be set aside.

09. Accordingty, the criminar petition is arowed, and the criminar proceedings initiated against the petitioners_ accused Nos.1 and 6 vide impugned order. dated 04.03.2024 passed in cRL-M.p.No. 14g of 2021in crime No.3gg of 2017, are herer:y quashed. However, the tearned t\4agistr.ate !s not precluded from taking cogrnizance against the petitioners_ accused Nos.1 and 6 afresh, after affording due opportunity to both sides, and shail pass a reasoned order by recording prima facie findings and reasons, in accordance with raw. As a sequet, pending miscellaneous apptications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- V.HARI PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER Ilg l-y9i9r, ,ifr#"te of First crass (pcR) speciar rVrobire court, Karimnagar. The Statir:n House officer. Karimnaqar ll rown police station, Karimnagar

To

G.'td

5. fwo CCI to the public Prosecutor, tiigrr court for the state of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. Oh.-CC to Sri. D'Bhaskar Reddy' Advocate [OPUCI

5. Two CD CoPies Pr/PSL &,

HIGH COI.IRT DATED: 0610212026

ORDER

CRLP.No.12924 of 2O2;4 ALLOWING THE CRL.PETITION i ?f JK-s zvi,frc "tilE s o ( z * I PNTC,P o \ * 1 ir tt 1!1