IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.16931 of 2025 Date: 17.12.2025 Between:

Shaik Mohammed Maqbool ...Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Through SHO, Madhapur PS, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad and another.

...Respondents

ORDER

This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.3182 of 2024, on the file of X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Court, at Kukatpally, Cyberabad, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.1, for the offences punishable under Sections 329(3), 324(4), 117(2), 351(2),79 r/w.

3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’).

2. Heard Mr. K. Madhu Swaroop Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has not committed the offence and he was falsely implicated in the present crime. Even according to the allegations made either in the complaint or in the final report, the ingredients for the offence under Section 329(3), 324(4), 117(2), 351(2), 79 r/w 3(5) of BNS are not attracted. The disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.2 are related to boundary demarcation, compound wall and site access during construction which are purely civil in nature. The respondent No.2/defacto complainant lodged the present complaint by giving a criminal colour. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner amounts to a clear abuse of the process of law.

4. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner to attract the offence punishable under Sections 329(3), 324(4), 117(2), 351(2),79 r/w. 3(5) of BNS. The victim sustained grievous injuries in the hands of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner cannot seek quashing of the crime on the grounds raised in the present criminal petition.

5. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner. The crime was initially registered for the offences under Sections 329(3), 324(4), 115(2), 351(2) r/w. 3(5) of BNS and subsequently, basing upon the medical record, the offences were altered to Sections from 115(2) BNS to 117(2) BNS and addition of Section 79 of BNS. The Investigating Officer, after recording the statements of witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., filed final report, wherein the witnesses specifically mentioned the role of the petitioner. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any grounds to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.3182 of 2024, on the file of X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Court, at Kukatpally, Cyberabad.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner after dictating the order requested this Court to dispense with the presence of the petitioner before the trial Court, and the same was not opposed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

7. Taking into the consideration the above submission, the presence of the petitioner in C.C.No.3182 of 2024, on the file of X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Court, at Kukatpally, Cyberabad, is dispensed with, subject to the condition that the petitioner/accused No.1 shall be represented by his counsel on every date of hearing, unless his presence is specifically required during the course of the trial. In the event of non-appearance of petitioner/accused No.1 on any date so fixed by the trial Court, the trial Court shall be entitled to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

17.12.2025 ggd