IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Date:23.01.2026 Between:

Maddala Padma Rao …Petitioner/Accused No.1 And State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and another.

... Respondents

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.1 in FIR No.182 of 2025 on the file of Madhira Rural Police Station, Khammam District, registered for the offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3) and 109(1) read with 190 of BNS and Section 3(1), (r) (s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act (for short ‘SC/ST Act’).

2. Heard Ms. G.V.S.S. Sruthi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there are no ingredients to attract the offence under Section 109 IPC against the petitioner in this case and that all the other offences are punishable with less than seven (07) years of punishment. He further submitted that even according to the contents of the complaint, the petitioner has not committed any offence and thus, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of process of law. She further submitted that since Section 109 of BNS does not attract against the petitioner, the police may be directed to invoke the procedure laid down under Section 35(3) of BNSS.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed submitting that the contents of the complaint itself disclose the offence of attempt to murder and that the investigation is still in progress and that the prosecution could collect the medical certificate of the de facto complainant, which discloses grievous injury. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. It is alleged that when a quarrel ensued between the women belonging to CPM and one woman, by name, Krupavara, belong to BRS the de facto complainant has pacified the matter and sent her home. When the de facto complainant was returning, the accused No.1 came running from behind, abused him in filthy language, attempted to kill him and beat him with stick, hit his left hand, due to the said blow, the de facto complainant fell down on the road and immediately, the other accused i.e. accused Nos.2 to 7 surrounded him and beat him on the chest and other parts with fists. When one Velpula Praveen tried to rescue him, the accused have also beaten him and threatened to kill him. Accused No.8 is alleged to have stopped the fight. Thus, the allegations prima facie point out the offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3) and 109(1) read with 190 of BNS and Section 3(1), (r) (s) of the SC/ST Act against the petitioners.

7. The instructions submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor points out that injury certificate of the de facto complainant and V. Praveen are collected which reveal that the de facto complainant has sustained fracture of Distal Radius, which is grievance injury. The investigation is still in progress. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the offence under Section 109 of BNS does not attract against the petitioner, cannot be ascertained as of now in the said circumstances. The petition lacks merit for consideration and the process of investigation cannot be scuttled at this stage. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

8. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA January 23, 2026 KTL