IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.163 of 2026 DATE: 06.03.2026 Between:

Merugu Gopinadh @ Gopi …. Revision Petitioner/

Accused No.9 AND The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad and another …. Respondents/

Complainant

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the revision petitioner, who is arrayed as Accused No.9 in S.C.No.562 of 2022, seeking to set aside the charges framed against him for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 302, 141 and 202 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda (trial Court).

2. Heard Mr.V. Raghunath, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Kadire Ajith Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner as well as Mr. M. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing respondent No.1-

State.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that there is absolutely no material on record to show that the petitioner was involved in the commission of the murder of the deceased and that none of the statements of the witnesses recorded during the course of investigation attribute any overt act to the petitioner nor do they disclose his participation in the alleged offence. He further submitted that despite the absence of such material, the trial Court erroneously framed charges against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, which is unsustainable in law. Therefore, prayed the Court to allow the Criminal Revision Case by setting aside the charges framed by the trial Court.

4. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed counter contending that at the stage of framing charges, the Court is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence and that it is sufficient if there exists prima facie material to proceed against the accused and that the Court has the power to frame charges for appropriate offences based on the material available on record and relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhawna Bai Vs. Ghanshyam & Others1, wherein it was held that at the stage of framing charges, the trial court is not required to assign elaborate or detailed reasons. In view of the said authoritative pronouncement, it was submitted that the present petition is devoid of merit and accordingly deserves to be dismissed.

5. Having regard to the submissions advanced by both the learned counsel and considering the statements of the witnesses recorded by the investigating officer, it is evident that there are no specific allegations against the petitioner indicating his direct involvement in the commission of the offence of murder. However, the trial Court framed charges against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC without indicating the basis on which such charge was framed. While detailed reasons are not necessary at the stage of framing charges, the order must at least demonstrate that the Court has considered the material on record and applied its mind before framing such serious charges. In the absence of such indication, this Court is of the opinion that the matter requires

1 Crl.A.No.1820 of 2018 (arising out of SLP(Crl).No.6964 of 2019)

reconsideration by the trial Court after hearing both parties and upon proper examination of the material available on record.

6. Accordingly, the charges framed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, against the petitioner in S.C.No.562 of 2022 are hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to consider the matter afresh and frame charges, against the petitioner after hearing both sides and after duly considering the material placed before it.

7. With the above observations, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

_______________

K. SUJANA, J Date: 06.03.2026 SS THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJ