THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.12950 of 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 5 seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.1733 of 2024 on the file of X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 509 and 506 read with 34 IPC.

2. Heard Sri S. Srinivasa Chary, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case crops up from a minor dispute of maintaining the Apartments and that the matter is purely of civil nature. He further submitted that the de facto complainant has created a false MLC and has got the petitioners implicated in a false case, just to settle the matter in their Apartments. He further submitted that the petitioners never threatened the de facto complainant nor obstructed the passage and that the CCTV footage is very much available in their Apartments and if at all the case is genuine, the police could have collected the CCTV footage, but they have not produced it as the truth would be in favour of the petitioners and hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that ground taken by the petitioner that MLC is a false document, cannot be sustained to quash the proceedings. He further submitted that the doctor has to be examined for ascertaining the truth or falsity of the MLC. He further submitted that the prosecution could also examine the eye witnesses during the course of investigation, which can be subjected to trial. He, thus, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The allegations point out prima facie case against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 509 and 506 read with 34 IPC. The evidence of the eye witnesses i.e. L.Ws.2 and 3 and the documentary evidence i.e. MLC have to be tested during the course of trial. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment in Tomaso Bruno & Ors. v. State of UP, (2015) SCC Online SC 86, wherein it was held that CCTV footage is the best evidence and non production of CCTV footage was a significant oversight undermining the prosecution case. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that if CCTV footage is examined, no offence would be

made out against the petitioners, that the prosecution has failed to submit CCTV footage before the trial court and that there is no substance in the prosecution case. But it is for the prosecution to produce the best evidence available. Further, it does not preclude the accused from producing any evidence in defence including the CCTV footage. Hence, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. However, it is deemed appropriate to dispense with the attendance of the petitioners before the trial court.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of dispensing with the attendance of the petitioners before the trial court provided they are represented by a counsel on every date of hearing before the trial court and they shall be present before the trial court as and when their presence is required during the course of trial.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA October 23, 2025 KTL