Telangana High Court
CRLP/12164/2024 of G. Kishan Singh Vs The State Of Telangana on 4 November 2025
Singh, S/o. Late. G. Gangaram, aged about 46 years, Occ Govt. Employee, R/o. H.No.13-2-749, Raheempura, Mangalhat, Hyderabad 2. Smt Chaya Bai, Wo. G. Kishan Singh, aged about 46 years, Occ House Wife, R/o. H. N0.13-2-749, Raheempura, Mangalhat, Hyderabad 3. Smt Latha Bai, s/0. G. Anil Singh,
t32571
Between:
AND
1. G. Kishan Singh, S/o. Late. G. Gangaram, aged about 46 years, Occ Govt.
Employee, R/o. H.No.13-2-749, Raheempura, Mangalhat, Hyderabad
2. Smt Chaya Bai, Wo. G. Kishan Singh, aged about 46 years, Occ House Wife, R/o. H. N0.13-2-749, Raheempura, Mangalhat, Hyderabad
3. Smt Latha Bai, s/0. G. Anil Singh, aged about 46 years. Occ House Wife, R/o.
H. N o. 1 3-2-749. aheempu ra, I\ilang alhat, Hyderabad.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12164 OF 2024
...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO 1 TO 3
1 The State Of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for state of Telangana
2. Smt. G. Aarthi, W/o. G. Laddu Singh, age 37 years, Occ House Wife, R/o.
H No.13-2-749, Raheempura, lVlangalhat, Hyderabad
...RESPONDENTS
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 allow the criminal petition and quash the C.C.no. 4859 of 2020 on the file of the XVI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, against the petitioner.
l.A. NO:2OF 2024
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 all further proceedings including appearance of petitioners in
C.C.no. 4859 of 2020 dated 26.11.2020 on the file of the XVI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, pending disposal of criminal petition.
e:::r.#
This P^etition comtng on for hearing, upon perusing the Mem: andum of Grounds of Criminal petition _and upon' treaiinj- tne argrments- - ot !r1 L,_R9m Singh, Advocate for the petitionercno tf,"" prbti. ,rose"cutoi iiOf *
behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and f.tone appeared foi Resp,, cent No 2
The Court made the following: ORDER
*+,F-y
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI
cRIMINAL PETITION No.1 2164 of 2024
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 under Section 52g of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') by the petitioners_ accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No 4859 of 2020 on the file of the learned XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, registered for the offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the lndian penal Code, 1860 (for sho('lPC')
2. Heard [Vlr. L Ram Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and tVlr. M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional public prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State. There is no representation for respondent No.2-de facto complainant. Perused the record.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the petitioners and de facto complainant are the family members. The petitioner-accused No.1 and the husband of de facto complainant i.e., LW-2 namely G.Laddu Singh are brothers and they are residing under the same roof. There are ongoing properly disputes between them. On 25.12.2019, while the de facto complainant was engaged in household work, petitioner-accused No.'l poured water on her husband/LW-2. When LW_2
:!
\
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that de facto complainant has filed a civil suit seeking partitic possession of suit schedule property vrde O.S.No.'l 59 r 'the petitioner-accused No.1 herein and others. ln the petitioner-accused No.1 herein has filed I.A.No 595 of ll de facto complainant's husband and the same \i1ri 18.11.2021, granting temporary injunction in his favour, the husband o'f de facto complainant and anyone clainl from constructing wall in the suit schedule property unt I suit. There are no specific allegations against the peti ' ingredients of the offence alleged against them are not nt he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner he husband of r and separate f 2020 against said suit, the t21 against the s allowed on and restraining rg through him disposal of the ioners and the rde out. Hence, ;.
5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Ptrlic Prosecutor contended that there are specific allegations against thr: tetitioners. lt is further contended that all the allegations levelled in the rr mplaint as well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of trial, and her:e, this is not a , questioned him, petitioner-accused No.1 wantonly picke,J up quarrel with him and beat him. When the de facto complainant interver ed, petitioners- accused Nos.2 and 3 joined and beat both the de facto c tmplainant and her husband with sticks, causing injuries w fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the petition
6. Having gone through the record, it is evident that there are ongoing property disputes between the parties, which are purely civil in nature and a civil suit is pending between them. The petitioners have obtained temporary injunction in their favour, restraining lhe de facto complainant's husband and anyone claiming through him. The stick used in the commission of offence was not recovered by the Police during the course of investigation and except lhe de facto complainant and her husband, no independent witnesses were examined. The medical certificates show that the injuries suffered by the victims are 'simple in nature'
7. ln view of the foregoing discussion, this Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.4B59 of 2020 on the file of the learned XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- U.SUDHA SISTANTREGIS //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To,
1. The XVI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
2. The Station House Officer, Mangalhat police Station, Hyderabad.
3. Two CCs to The Public Prosecutor, High Court for state of Telangana, Hyderabad.[OUT]
4. One CC to Sri L. Ram Singh, Advocate [OPUC]
5. Two CD Copies \r, -
HIGH COURT DATED:04/1 112025 -iHE i B o ,.i ' /-- + t o.+ ;\ \ i' \nr () .\ J ',3\- t O 318: ilm Cr. -:---/
ORDER
CRLP.No.12'164 of 2024 CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED aaAq.l.' \* -" 6c"