IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Date:16.03.2026 Between:

Bhaskar Reddy Gangidi and 2 others …Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 And The State of Telangana, Rep. by 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 petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 in CC No.1888 of 2022 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Jangaon, registered for the offences under Sections 294 (b) and 506 read with 34 IPC and Section 92 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

2. Heard Sri Sunkari Janardhan Goud, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri E. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1. Despite of service of notice, none appeared for the respondent No.2.

3. The case of the prosecution is that a complaint was lodged on 08.07.2022 stating that on 05.07.2022 at 13.10, hours the accused have abused the de facto complainant in filthy language and intentionally insulted and humiliated the disability of the de facto complainant in public place due to the disputes pending between the de facto complainant and the accused with regard to the ancestral property. It is alleged that the de facto complainant has approached the village elders and on their advice he filed the complaint and hence, the delay occurred in lodging the complaint.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are relatives of the de facto complainant and that the allegations in the charge sheet per se do not make out any offence. The petitioners never intended to insult the de facto complainant nor did they abuse him in any manner. He further submitted that prior to this complaint, the younger son of petitioner Nos.1 and 3 i.e. Hareesh Kumar has filed a suit vide O.S. No.19 of 2019 against the de facto complainant herein and his son for perpetual injunction and the suit was decreed in their favour. Pursuant to the said decree, the present complaint is filed with all false allegations and that there is no iota of truth in the allegations. He therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings.

5. The learned Assistant Pubic Prosecutor has submitted that the incident is alleged to have occurred in the presence of LWs.2 to 5 and that the panchayat elders are also examined by the prosecution during the course of investigation, who are listed as LWs.3 to 5 and that the prosecution has collected ample material to prove the offence against the petitioners. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Perused the record.

7. It is alleged that there are pending land disputes between both the parties and that owing to the said disputes, the petitioners are alleged to have abused the de facto complainant by insulting him with regard to his disability as he is a physically challenged person. The allegations, prima facie, point out the offences against the petitioners. LW.2 is an eye witness and he is also a physically challenged person. LWs.3 to 5 are the panchayat elders and eye witnesses to the alleged incident. The veracity of these witness needs to be tested during the course of trial to cull out the truth or otherwise in the allegations. Hence, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein. However, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the petition by dispensing with the attendance of the petitioners before the trial court.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of dispensing with the attendance of the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 before the trial court provided they are represented by a counsel before the trial court on every date of hearing and shall appear before the trial court as and when their presence is required.

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA March 16, 2026 KTL