IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.5318 of 2021 Date: 22.01.2026 Between:

Smt.V.Prasanna Naidu ...Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Through SHO, Neredmet Police Station, Rachakonda, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and another ...Respondents

ORDER

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.482 of 2021 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum- XIX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri, for the offences punishable under Sections 353 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 08.12.2020 at about 21:00 hours, the de-facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that she was appointed as Returning Officer for Neredmet No.136 Division in the GHMC elections vide proceedings No.902/GHMC/Elections/2020-136, dated 29.10.2020. After peaceful polling, vote counting commenced as scheduled in compliance with the Election Commission’s instructions. During counting, 544 ballot papers relating to Polling Station No.50, bearing distinguishing marks, were kept aside as per the directions of this Court. At that stage, the petitioner, a contesting candidate, along with her associates, attempted to use undue influence on election officials with dishonest intent. The petitioner allegedly abused the complainant in filthy language and threatened her with dire consequences that she will break her bones, if she declares the results. Hence, the complaint was lodged seeking necessary action. 3. Heard Mr.M.Raju Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that the petitioner has contested in the Municipal Corporation elections as a candidate of a National Party from Neredmet No.136 Division and she neither abused respondent No.2 nor threatened her. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the alleged incident was occurred on 04.12.2020, whereas the complaint was lodged on 08.12.2020 after a lapse of more than four days without explaining reasons for the delay and the allegations made either in the complaint or in the final report, the ingredients of the alleged offences are not attracted against the petitioner and no independent witnesses were examined except LWs.2 and 3, who are co-

employees of respondent No.2, while filing final report.

4.1. He further submitted that during the course of counting of ballet papers, the petitioner had raised objections before respondent No.2 and thereafter approached this Court and filed W.P.No.22176 of 2020, and this Court, by order dated 04.12.2020, directed the Returning Officer and other officials to keep the ballot papers which were not marked with the arrow cross mark separately, and to keep the disputed ballot papers in safe custody along with the other ballot papers. He further submitted that the petitioner was not present at the scene of the offence. Hence, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse of the process of law.

4.2. In support of his contention, he relied upon the order passed by this Court in Mogullapally v. State of Telangana, 2023 SCC OnLine TS 4423

5. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioner to attract the ingredients of the alleged offences. He further submitted that whether the petitioner has committed the offences or not is a disputed question of fact and the same has to be adjudicated and decided by the trial Court only after a full-fledged trial. Basing upon the grounds pleaded in the criminal petition, the peti