THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO + CRIMINAL PETITION No.602 of 2021 % Dated 09.10.2025 # Thati Vennela, D/o.Kumaraswamy, Age 23 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. H.No.4-3-101, Gundlagadda, Jangaon Village and Mandal, Warangal District.

….Petitioner/Accused No.2 VERSUS $ The State of Telangana, Through S.H.O. Jangaon Police Station, Warangal Commissionerate, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad and another.

… Respondents ! Counsel for Petitioner : Mr.Karam Chendu Komireddy ^ Counsel for Respondent No.1 : Mr. M.Vivekananda Reddy, Asst.P.P.

Counsel for Respondent No.2 : Mr.V.Uma Kanth < GIST:

> HEAD NOTE:

? CITATIONS:

1. (1996) 11 SCC 557 2. (2015) 11 SCC 137 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.602 of 2021

ORDER

This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.648 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Jangaon, Warangal District (presently Jangaon District), wherein the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.2, for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 290 and 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 01.03.2019, the complainant lodged a complaint stating that he owns a printing press under the name and style of Madhavi Printing Press, located on Nehru Road at Gandhi Chowk, Jangaon. As part of road widening activity, the complainant was dismantled a portion of the press building up to 3.6 feet. Around 12:00 PM on the same day, while discussing site boundary issues with his neighbour, Koyyada Srinivas, an unrelated person named Thati Kumar and his daughter, i.e., the petitioner herein unnecessarily interfered, picked a quarrel, and abused the complainant and his family in filthy language. During the quarrel, the petitioner physically assaulted the complainant, his daughter-in-law Madhavi, and his younger son Karthik by beating them with footwear. It is alleged that Thati Kumar, who belongs to the Harijan community, threatened to falsely implicate them in SC/ST atrocity case, if they responded. The complainant further stated that Thati Kumar had been roaming around the premises for the past three days, creating a sense of fear. It is also alleged that Koyyada Srinivas provoked Thati Kumar by offering false promises of financial gain, thereby instigating the quarrel. By misusing the protection granted under caste law, the accused persons allegedly intimidated, abused, and assaulted the complainant and his family members. Basing on the same, present crime was registered.

3. Heard Mr.Karam Chendu Komireddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Mr.V.Uma Kanth Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr.C.Ruthwik Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed the alleged offences and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that the only allegation levelled against the petitioner is that she beat respondent No.2 and his family members with footwear. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the petitioner has not voluntarily caused hurt using a dangerous weapon. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 324 of the IPC are not attracted against the petitioner. He further submitted that the other offences levelled against the petitioner, namely, Sections 290 and 506 of the IPC, are non-cognizable offences. The Investigating Officer, without obtaining prior permission from the competent Magistrate as required under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) conducted investigation and filed a final report and the same is gross violation of provisions of Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. Hence, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.2 is clear abuse of the process of law and is liable to be quashed.

5. In support of