Telangana High Court
CRLP/10486/2024 of B.Laxman Vs The State of Telangana on 6 January 2026
COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10486 OF 2024 Between B.Laxman, S/o Achaiah, Aged about 62 years, Occ. Chowkidar, R/o. H.No.1- 54/81, Ramadugu
132571
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10486 OF 2024
Between
B.Laxman, S/o Achaiah, Aged about 62 years, Occ. Chowkidar, R/o. H.No.1- 54/81, Ramadugu (V& Nn) Karimnagar District
.. Petitione r/Acc u sed
AND
1. The State of Telangana, Represented by rts Publc Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad.
2. Basuraveni Swarupa, Wo B.Laxman, Aged about 43 years, Occ: House wife C/o. Jetti Veeraiah, Cell No.8500602006, R/o. H No 3-101/3/1, Lingapur (V), Manakonduru (M), Karimnagar District.
.- Res pondenUCom pla ina nt
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 C.C. No. 4601 of 20.19 on the file of the (SPL) Judictal First Class Magistrate (Excise), Karimnagar against to petitione r/accused No 1
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the [\/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased To stay all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioner/accused No.1 in C.C. No 4601 of 20.19 on the file of the (SPL) Judicial First Class Magistrate (Excise), Karimnagar, pending final disposal of the criminal petition.
':
This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing he l,/emorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the argurr nts of lrrl/s S Gopal Rao,Advocate for the Petitioner and sri lt/l Ramachandra Ieddy, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and . ,ne appeared for the Respondent No. 2
The Court made the following:ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10486 ot 2024
o6TH JANUARY,2026
Between:
B. Laxma n
Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana
Rep. through Public Prosecutor and lother Respondents
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
, This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner/accused seekrng to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.4601 of 2019 on the file of Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Excise), Karimnagar registered for the offences under sections 498-A' 324 of Indian Penal Code (for short IPC').
2. Heard M/s.S.Gopal Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. Though notice was served on respondent No.2, none entered appearance. Perused the record'
3. The brief facts of the prosecution are that about 6 years back, the marriage of the defacto complainant was performed with the petitioner and she was blessed with twc hildren After 6 months of marriage, her husband started hali ssing her and raised quarrel with her and her children and caug [t hold her tuft of hairs and banged to wall and uttered vulgar language and suspected her fidelity and did not look after il_r,r welfare. On 21 .10.2019, he beat her with bucket on her he:1 and causgd bleeding injury, due to which two sutures were i cplied on her head and about one year back also he beat on hr. head due to which B sutures were applied. She therefore, lodgr 1 a complaint with the Karimnagar Women pS and the said c rmplaint was registered under Crime No.127 of 2O1g for the o,ences under sections 498-4, 324 of lpC.
4. Learned counser for the petitioner submits thir there are no specific allegations against the petitioner and onl, vague and omnibus allegations are made against the petitionr:r and prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/ac: .,sed who is the husband of the clefacto complainant.
5. On the other hand, Learned Additional public prosecutor was heard on behalf of respondent No.2 also and he : ubmits that there are specific aregations against the petitioner arr l there are disputed question of facts and trial has to be conr ucted and \ \ \ ,l r,T
the truth or otheruvise would come out only after conducting trial by the concerned Court and it is not a fit case for quashment of proceedings against the petitioner and the interference of this Court at this juncture is. not required. Hence, prays to dismiss the criminal petition
6. On perusal of the complaint and charge sheet, it is evident that there are specific allegations against the petitioner with regard to harassment and attacking the 2nd respondenUwife. As per charge sheet, it is apparent that 2nd respondent received injuries due to her husband and _l the LW1 1, doctor who treated LWlldefacto complainant issued medical certificate opining that she received simple injuries. lt is also evident that petitioner harassed the LW1-defacfo complainant mentally and physically suspiecting her fidelity and did not eat food prepared by her and the accused himself prepared food and eat and did not give any money nor look after the welfare of his wife and children. Even before lodging of complaint at 'about one year back also the petitioner attacked the LWI due to which 8 sutures were applied. Later on 21 .10.2019, the petitioner attacked LW1 on her head with a bucket and caused bleeding injury, due to which 2 sutures were applied on her head. As there are specific allegations against the petitioner and there are triable issues and disputed question of
I )
facts, interference of this Court is not required at this stage and the trial Court shall conduct trial and concluc r proce6dings. Therefore, it is not a fit case for quashing the proce r:dings against the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is dismis:;, d Pending miscellaneous applications, if ar, shall stand closed SD/- I SRINIVASA REDDY A S STANT REGISTRAR \ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, Sa,?SL
1. The (SPL) Judicial First CIass [Magistrate (Excise), Kz 'imnagar.
2. The Station House Officer, WPS Karimnagar Poltce St I on, Karimnagar.
3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the S;1 rte of Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT)
4. One CC to lV/s S Gopal Rao, Advocate [OPUC]
5. Two CD Copies \ I
HIGH COURT DATED:06/0112026
ORDER
CRLP.No.10486 of 2024 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION i\ 1 6 EB 202[ * .l< C P1J ::'t_-:: 'iy b