Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 15868
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J
P. Madhukumar Reddy – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4994 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri K.Rathanga Pani Reddy
For the Respondents: Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy
The court upholds that ongoing investigations should not be interrupted without clear evidence and allows police discretion to proceed.
Headnote:This petition challenges FIR No.50 of 2025 under BNS Sections 318(4), 336(3), 340(2). The petitioners argue no allegations exist against them and that their arrest lacks evidentiary support. The court noted the ongoing investigation and declined intervention, allowing the police to proceed without coercive measures. Final result: Criminal Petition disposed directing compliance in investigation.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. presentation of fir details and background of allegations. (Para 1 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments presented by both parties regarding evidence and involvement. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's consideration of ongoing investigation and evidence collection. (Para 5 , 8) |
| 4. final directive for investigation and cooperation. (Para 9) |
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners – accused Nos.3 to 7 seeking to quash the FIR No.50 of 2025 on the file of the P.S. Pangal, registered for the offences under Sections 318 (4), 336(3), 340(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 (for short “the BNS ”)
2. Heard the submissions of Sri K.Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 – State.
3. The learned petitioners counsel has submitted that there is no whisper about the allegations against the petitioners in the complaint. The present case is based solely on the confession statements of accused. He further submitted that the petitioners are not at all concerned with the alleged offences and that they have been falsely implicated in the case and that there was no basis for their remand and that the petitioners herein were remanded solely based on their confession. Thus, in the absence of any material on record, the police have arrested the accused and therefore, he prayed to quash the FIR.
4. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has submitted that the investigation is still in progress and that there are 11 cases pending against accused No.3 and hence, requested the Court to dismiss the petition.
5. Perused the record.
6. The de facto complainant has lodged a complaint alleging that he owns an agricultural land admeasuring Ac.03-00 guntas in survey Nos.239 and 240 in the outskirts of their village Mahammadapur, Pangal Mandal. He further submitted that there is a BT road that is being laid to their village abutting their agricultural field and thus, one of their villagers by name Gadwala Dasthagiri had discussed with him asking him to file a petition before the RDO to stop laying of BT road, for which he has declined. But subsequently, the said person has forged his signature and presented a petition before the RDO and has also filed a case in the High Court fraudulently. He was surprised to learn such facts when he was called upon by the RDO, Wanaparty to his office on
21.03.2025 and has shown papers pertaining to the case filed in High Court for stoppage of BT road.
7. It is pertinent to note that the said Gadwala Dasthagiri is arrayed as accused No.1 in this case along with six others and the petitioners herein are accused Nos.3 to 7 in FIR No.50 of 2025 and they are shown to be absconding in the remand report filed by the police. It further discloses that there are 10 cases registered against accused No.2 in the present complaint.
8. Since the investigation is still in progress, the police would collect evidence during their investigation. In case, if no evidence is found against the petitioners, they may decide to drop the charges at the time of filing the charge sheet. However, as the matter is at a premature stage, this Court does not want to interfere with the process of investigation.
9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the police concerned to proceed with the investigation strictly, in accordance with law, without taking any coercive steps against the petitioners. Further, the petitioners shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of investigation.
