THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO + CRIMINAL PETITION No.663 OF 2025 % Dated 07.04.2025 # B. Ranga Rao …. Petitioner VERSUS $ The State of Telangana, Rep., by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad & others.

… Respondents ! Counsel for Petitioner : Sri Rajagopallavan Tayi ^ Counsel for Respondent No.1: Additional Public Prosecutor Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri Pranay Sohini < GIST:

> HEAD NOTE:

? CITATIONS:

1. (2003) 11 SCC 519

2. (2004) 1 SCC 547 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.663 of 2025

ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner invoking the provisions of Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) questioning the order dated 30.10.2024 in Crl.R.No.22 of 2022 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District and Medchal, confirming the order dated 07.09.2018 in Crl.M.P.No.146 of 2011 in C.C.No.257 of 2016 passed by the VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-

Malkajgiri District at Medchal.

2. Heard Sri Rajagopallavan Tayi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pranay Sohini, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed a private complaint against respondent Nos.2 and 3/A1 and A2 and another person/A3 before the VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Medchal and the said complaint was referred to police for investigation. The Investigating Officer after conducting investigation filed charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C.No.257 of 2016 (Old C.c.No.1407 of 2006). In the said C.C., respondent Nos.2 and 3/A1 and A2 filed an application vide Crl.M.P.No.146 of 2011 under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., seeking to discharge them from the main case. The learned Magistrate allowed the said application by order dated 07.09.2018. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed revision petition vide Crl.R.P.No.22 of 2022 raising several grounds. The learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medchal- Malkajgiri District at Medchal, without giving any reasons, much less, valid reasons simply confirmed the order of the learned Magistrate and the same is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 submits that subsequent to the order passed by the learned Magistrate in Crl.M.P.No.146 of

2011, respondent No.3/A2 died on 15.07.2019. The petitioner without verifying the same has filed revision petition against a dead person. He further submits that the revisional Court after going through the records and also the order passed by the learned Magistrate in Crl.M.P.No.146 of 2011 has rightly dismissed the revision petition. He further submits that Accused No.3 – Sri T. Nageshwar Rao, who is the primary accused, was already discharged. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions judge. Learned counsel also submits that the revision petition may be dismissed against respondent No.2/A3 on the ground of his death.

5. Having considered the rival submissions made by respective parties and after perusal of the impugned order dated 30.10.2024 passed by the revisional Court, it reveals that the revisional Court simply extracted the averments of the case, judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner, observations made by the learned Magistrate in order dated 07.09.2018 and memorandum of grounds raised by the petitioner and framed the point for consideration that whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for or not and dismissed the revision petition and simply confirmed the order of the learned Magistrate. It is very much relevant to extract the operative portion of the impugned order passed by the revisional Court, which reads as under:

“On perusal of the record, it appears that the learned Magist