HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA *****

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5504 of 2023 Between:

Mohammed Jahangir ...Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad and another ... Respondents DATE OF ORDER: 14^th July, 2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:-

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

1 Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be Yes/No allowed to see the Judgment?

2 Whether the copies of judgment may be marked Yes/No to Law Reporters/Journals

3 Whether HER Lordship wish to see the fair copy of Yes/No the Judgment?

_____________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J * THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI + Criminal Petition No.5504 of 2023 % Date: 14^th July, 2025 Between:

Mohammed Jahangir ... Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad and another ... Respondents ! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Siddharth Pawar, learned counsel representing M/s. Mohd Muzaferullah Khan ! Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1: Smt.S.Madhavi >HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred

1. 2023 (1) ALD (CRL.) 206 (SC)

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.5504 of 2023

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.3 seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against him in C.C.No.624 of 2021 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge- cum-Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Hayathnagar. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

02. Heard Sri Siddharth Pawar, learned counsel representing M/s. Mohd Muzaferullah Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1. No representation on behalf of the respondent No.2. Perused the material available on record.

03. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that accused No.2 is engaged in the scrap business and cell tower-related works, and accused No.3 is known to accused No.2. On 06.07.2021 at about 1700 hours, while accused No.2 was proceeding towards Narkatpally in a trolley engaged by him at Thorrur X Road, Hayathnagar, he noticed two individuals in possession of RF cables. Accused No.2, with an intention to make easy money, inquired about the cables. One of the individuals, i.e. accused No.1, informed him that the RF cables were stolen and offered to sell them. Accused No.2 purchased the cables from accused No.1 and loaded them into the said trolley. While on route, accused No.2 contacted accused No.3 over the phone and requested him to purchase the scrap. Accused No.3, along with two labourers, arrived at the location and transferred the RF cables into a truck bearing No.TS 09 UC 9175 belonging to him. At about 2230 hours, when accused Nos.2 and 3 reached near Word and Deed School, they were apprehended by the police. Based on the above facts, the accused No.1 is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC, and accused Nos.2 and 3 are alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-accused No.3 has no involvement whatsoever in the alleged offence. It is contended that there is no material on record to establish that the petitioner had knowledge or reason to believe that the property in question was stolen, or that he had dishonestly received or retained the same. Furthermore, there are no specific or direct allegations levelled against the petitioner in the charge sheet. A plain reading of its contents does not disclose the essential ingredients required to constitute the offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC.

05. With the above submissions, while praying to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.3, he relied upon a decision of Honourable Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 (1) ALD (CRL.) 206 (SC) wherein at Paragraph Nos.15, 21, 22 and 23 held that:

“15. To establis