Telangana High Court
CRLP/14390/2025 of Panduga Bhapiraju Vs The State of Telangana on 31 December 2025
COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEI\4BER TWO IHOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 14390 0F 2025 Between: 1. Panduga Bhapiraju, S/o Bhunraiah Aged about 34 years, Occ Agriculture 2.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEI\4BER
TWO IHOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 14390 0F 2025
Between:
1. Panduga Bhapiraju, S/o Bhunraiah Aged about 34 years, Occ Agriculture
2. Panduga Srikanth, Sio Thirupathi Aged about 29 years, Occ Agriculture
3. Panduga Prashanth. S/o Bhumaiah Aged about 30 years Occ Agrrculture AII
are r/o Vilasagar village, Boinpalli mandal, Rajanna siricilla Districi
...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 to 3
AND
The State of Telangana, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana At Hyderabad Pasula Sumanth alias Sudhakar, S/o Anlaiah, aged about 27 years, Occ Laborer caste Sc, madiga R/o vrlasagar village, Boinpalli mandal Rajanna siricilla District
.. RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS
Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the [\4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitron, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records relatrng to F.l R No 187/ 2025 dated Bl1O|2OZ5
on the file of Boinpally Police Station, Rajanna Sircilla District and to quash the same against the petitioners/ accused
l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025
Petition under Sectron 528 of BNSS that in the circumstances stated in the [/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings including the appearances arrest of the petitioners/accused 1 to 3 in F.l.R.No.187 of 2O25 dated 0g/10/2025 on the file of Boinpally Police Station, Rajanna Sircilla Distrrct pending disposal of the above q uash petition.
This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri GUDI
MADHUSUDHAN REDDY ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri. Jithender Rao Veeramalla the Additional Publrc Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2.
The Court made the following: ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TE,I ANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON.BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA D: /I EADA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.14390 OF 20: 5
DATE:31-12-2O25
Between:
Panduga Bhapiraju and two others
Petitioners
And
The State of Telangana,
Rep. by rts Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana,
at Hyderabad and another
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 petitir ners-accused Nos.'l to 3 seeking to quash the proceedings a; rinst them in Crime No.187 of 2025 of Boinpalli Police Station, Fl rjanna Sircilla District, registered for the oifences under Sectior ; 115(2) and '1 18(1) read with 3(5) of BNS and Section 3(l)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes ( )'evention of Atrocities) Act - t l"t' "' Dll),.1 Crl.P No.l4i9U of2025
2. Heard Sri Gudi lVladhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No 1_State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is a delay of six days in lodging the complaint, which is not explained; that the petitioners have never detained or caused any injuries to the de faclo complainant or any other person; and that a false case is filed lust to harass the petrtioners. He, therefore. prayed to quash the proceedings in the present crime against the petitioners herein.
4. Learned Additional public prosecutor has submitted that the Section of law is altered from Section 1 1B(.1 ) of BNS to Section 118(2) o'f BNS, as the prosecution could collect the injury certificate, which discloses the grievous injury sustained by the de facto complainant. He further submitted that there are disputes between the parties and that there is a case and a counter case pending between both the parties. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
Perused the record
1r l D,J ( r l' No. l,1390 ol 1025 ) \
lt is alleged in the complaint that previously a took place between two groups i.e., the petitione ': facto complainant, which was settled in ir Subsequently, on 02.1O.2025 at about 21:30 hours, /aclo complainant was going along with his frieno petitioners herein abused them and beat them w I stone cutting wire, as a result, the de facto complairt fracture of two fingers of hrs right hand and an irj ear, causing partial hearing loss and that his frienrl sustained a bone fracture on the left side of his fac allegations prima facie point out the offences alleg e petitroners herein.
Further, the present crime i.e., Crime No.1[ Boinpalli Police Station is lodged against the petitior a complaint lodged by respondent No.2-de fackr while Crime No 185 of 2025 of Boinpalli Pol < registered on a complaint lodged by petitione' against respondent No.2-de facfo complainant and admittedly, there is a case and a counter case aga I and it appears that there are disputes between bo ln such a case, one case cannot be quashed wh I r inor quarrel and the de panchayat. rvhile the de L Venu, the r hands and r rt sustained ry to his left ie., G. Venu :. Thus, the I against the 7 of 2025 of ers herein on r;om plain ant, e Station is l',,1o. t herein rthers. Thus, s,t each other r the parties. : the other is \
t-tTD.l Crl.P.No 14190 of2025 kept pending, as it was held by the Honourable Apex Court in Punit Beriwala v. The State of NCT of Delhi and othersl. Further, the investigation is still in progress. Since Section of law is altered from Section 118(1)of BNS to Section i1B(2) of BNS, no relief under Section 35(3) of BNSS can be granted to the petitioners. Hence, in the light of the decision in punit Beriwala's case (supra) and in view of the above held drscussion, it is opined that the Criminal Petition lacks merit.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any. shall stand closed. SD/- B.G.VYJAYANTHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' SECTION OFFICER
l To, 'l . The Judicial First crass Magistrate at vemurawada, Ralanna sircila District 2 The SHO Boinpaili police Station, Rajanna Siriciila District.
3. One CC to SRt cUDt MADHUSUDHAN REDDY Advocate IOPUC] 4 One CC to SRt. PUBLTC PROSECUTOR Advocate tOpUCl
5. Two CD Copies 1,4, PK/I'SL | 2025 Lrvcl-aw (SC) 504
HIGH COURT DATED:31 11212025 CRLP.No.14390 of 2025 CRIMINAL PEITITION IS DISMISSED. \rL 5Iq o t ( t o ll : .,; zU2E ;l. * DI n d" ) a