IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Date:08.01.2026 Between:

Jogu Venkanna @ Jogu China Venkanna …Petitioner/Accused 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 in FIR No.921 of 2023 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile) at Nalgonda, registered for the offences under Sections 354(A) and

354(D) IPC.

2. Heard Sri Narender Jalli, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is facing false allegations and that in fact he has made a complaint against the de facto complainant as she was not discharging her duties as a Secretary in the Panchayat Office, properly. Thus, by developing grudge against the petitioner herein, the present complaint is lodged with false allegations that he tried to outrage the modesty of the de facto complainant. He therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that not only the statement of the de facto complainant, but the police could record the statement of LW.2 also which supports the case of the de facto complainant, thus, the prosecution could collect ample material to prove the offence against the petitioner and hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The de facto complainant is stated to have been working as Carobar in Kasthala Gram Panchayat since 2016 and the petitioner is the Ward Member of 5^th Ward of Kasthala Gram Panchayat. It is alleged that he used to harass the de facto complainant sexually and insisted for sexual favours since long time, used to follow her, teased her while she was alone and used to disturb her duties, misbehaving with her with an intent to outrage her modesty and demanding her to fulfil his sexual lust. It is further alleged that on 20.03.2023 while the de facto complainant and LW.2 to 6 and other staff of Gram Panchayat office were attending a meeting, the petitioner targeted the de facto complainant and abused her in filthy language and insulted her. Thus, the de facto complainant suffered mental agony, was totally upset and tried to commit suicide by pouring petrol on her body. Therefore, the allegations prima facie point out the offences under Sections 354(A) and 354(D) of IPC against the petitioner. LWs.2 to 6 are listed as eye-witnesses to the alleged incident. The veracity of these witnesses needs to be tested during the course of trial. Hence, it is not proper to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. However, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the petition by dispensing with the attendance of the petitioner before the trial court.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of dispensing with the attendance of the petitioner before the trial court provided he is represented through a counsel on every date of hearing and he shall be present before the trial court as and when his presence is required during the course of trial.

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA January 08, 2026 KTL