Nandyala Narendar Reddy vs The State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 696 Tel

Telangana High Court

Nandyala Narendar Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 1 August, 2025

Author: Juvvadi Sridevi

Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi

     HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

                           *****

           CRIMINAL PETITION No.12894 of 2023

Between:

Nandyala Narendar Reddy                       ... Petitioner

                           AND

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High
Court, Hyderabad and another
                                            ...Respondents

DATE OF ORDER: 1st August, 2025

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

     THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI


 1    Whether Reporters of Local
      newspapers may be allowed to            Yes/No
      see the Judgment?
 2    Whether the copies of judgment
      may be marked to Law                    Yes/No
      Reporters/Journals
 3    Whether HER Lordship wish to
      see the fair copy of the                Yes/No
      Judgment?




                                    ___________________
                                     JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
                                 2




   * THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

           + Criminal Petition No.12894 of 2023


% Date: 1st August, 2025

Between:

Nandyala Narendar Reddy                       ... Petitioner

                           AND

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High
Court, Hyderabad and another
                                            ...Respondents


! Counsel for the Petitioner:         Sri L.Harish


! Assistant Public Prosecutor for
  the Respondent No.1-State:           Smt.S.Madhavi

! Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri D.V.Seetharam
Murthy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Mamidi
Avinash Reddy


>HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred

1. (2024) 1 Supreme Court Cases 417
2. (2019) 3 Supreme Court Cases 315
3. (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases 403
4. 2025 INSC 402
5. 1992 SCC (SUPP) 1 335
                                 3




  THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

            CRIMINAL PETITION No.12894 OF 2023

O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused

seeking to quash the proceedings against him in

P.R.C.No.38 of 2023 on the file of the learned IV Additional

Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge

at LB Nagar, Rangareddy District, registered for the offences

under Sections 306 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for

short 'IPC').

02. Heard Sri L.Harish, learned counsel for the

petitioner-accused; Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1 as well as Sri

D.V.Seetharam Murthy, learned Senior Counsel representing

Sri Mamidi Avinash Reddy, learned counsel for unofficial

respondent No.2. Perused the record.

03(a). The brief facts of the prosecution case are as

follows: For the past 7 to 8 years, Sri B. Lakshmana Rao

(hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') was engaged in

the construction business in collaboration with the petitioner-

accused at various locations including Chitraseema,

Mansoorabad, Hayathnagar, and surrounding areas. The

petitioner-accused used to purchase land, and the deceased

undertook the construction of residential flats thereon. In the

year 2020, the petitioner-accused acquired a land

admeasuring 886.32 square yards at Shanthi Nagar,

Kalvancha Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, where the

deceased constructed 20 residential flats under the name

"Sri Sai Meadows Constructions."

03(b). Similarly, during October and November 2020,

the petitioner-accused procured another land admeasuring

400 square yards at Agriculture Colony, Kharmanghat, where

the deceased constructed 10 residential flats, pursuant to a

Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) entered into between

them. The deceased had completed approximately 80% of

the construction but was facing severe financial difficulties in

completing the remaining work. He approached the

petitioner-accused, stating that the financiers were

demanding repayment of their loans and, as a solution,

proposed to register his share of the flats in the names of

those borrowers. The petitioner-accused, however, insisted

that the original MoU be handed over to him before

proceeding, and the deceased, placing trust in him, handed

over the original document. Despite repeated requests by

the deceased to register the flats in favour of the borrowers,

the petitioner-accused failed to comply.

03(c). In May 2022, the deceased expressed to his son

i.e. complainant that he was under extreme mental distress

due to pressure from financiers and as the petitioner-

accused failed to register the agreed flats. On 26.06.2022 at

around 1800 hours, the complainant, who was then at IICA,

Gurugram, received a call from his brother-in-law informing

him to immediately return to Hyderabad. Subsequently, the

complainant was informed that his father had passed away at

their residence. Upon his return, his brother-in-law informed

the complainant that at approximately 1715 hours, he found

the deceased unresponsive in the washroom, seated on the

commode with his head down. Upon checking, the

deceased was found to be cold and lifeless. The family

presumed that he had suffered a cardiac arrest due to

mounting mental stress and business-related pressure. The

family performed the cremation on 27.06.2022 at V.V.Nagar

Graveyard, Saroornagar, in accordance with their customs.

In view of the performing of death rituals, financial matters

and access to almirahs were restricted for 11 days post-

demise of the deceased.

03(d). On 07.07.2022, after completion of the 11th-day

rituals and Shanthi Homam, the complainant opened the

almirah and found a letter written by the deceased titled

"Suicide Note." In the said note, the deceased stated that he

and the petitioner-accused had jointly undertaken projects at

Hasthinapuram, Agriculture Colony, and Bhagyalatha

Kaman, Shanthi Nagar Colony, Hayathnagar. The deceased

mentioned that he had invested approximately

Rs.5,50,00,000/- into the said projects by availing loans from

financiers. He alleged that the petitioner-accused had

deceived him by refusing to register his share of 10 flats from

both project sites. Feeling betrayed and under immense

pressure, the deceased committed suicide. Hence, the

present case has been registered against the petitioner-

accused for the offences under Sections 306 and 420 of IPC.

04(a). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner-accused has no involvement whatsoever in the

alleged offences. It is contended that there was no dishonest

or fraudulent intention attributable to the petitioner at the

inception of the transaction, which is a sine qua non for

invoking the penal provisions under Section 420 IPC. The

dead body of the deceased was cremated and bones were

also completely burnt, as such, there is no medical evidence

with regard to the death of the deceased. The complainant

or other family members have not made an attempt to

approach a Doctor to know the cause of the death. The

alleged suicide note is undated and might have been written

prior to 31.03.2022 and such note cannot be believed, in the

absence of proximate live link between the petitioner-

accused and the deceased, in connection the death of the

deceased. There is nothing to indicate that there was

instigation or abetment by the petitioner-accused which had

driven the deceased to take extreme step of committing

suicide. The Police filed the charge sheet without proper

investigation and there is no incriminating material against

the petitioner-accused. There are no essential ingredients

required for constituting the alleged offences under Sections

420 and 306 of IPC.

04(b). With the above submissions, learned counsel for

the petitioner-accused while praying for the quashment of

criminal proceedings against the petitioner, relied upon a

decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Mohit Singhal

and another v. State of Uttarakhand and others 1 wherein

it was held at Paragraph No.11 that:

"11. In the present case, taking the complaint of the third respondent and the contents of the suicide note as correct, it is impossible to conclude that the appellants instigated the deceased to commit suicide by demanding the payment of the amount borrowed by the third respondent from her husband by using abusive language and by assaulting him by a belt for that purpose. The said incident allegedly happened more than two weeks before the date of suicide.

(2024) 1 Supreme Court Cases 417

There is no allegation that any act was done by the appellants in the close proximity to the date of suicide. By no stretch of the imagination, the alleged acts of the appellants can amount to instigation to commit suicide. The deceased has blamed the third respondent for landing in trouble due to her bad habits."

04(c). Further, he relied upon a decision of the

Honourable Supreme Court in M.Arjunan v. State

represented by its Inspector of Police 2 wherein it was held

at Paragraph No.6 that:

"6. As pointed out by the High Court, of course PW-1 to PW-5 have spoken about the borrowing of money by the deceased and also the execution of the promissory note. The sheet anchor of the prosecution's case to prove the guilt of the accused is the suicide note (M.O.1)-written by the deceased. On perusal of suicide note (M.O.1), it is seen that in M.O.1 the deceased has written about the financial difficulties faced by him and his inability to meet the financial crunch and also his inability to repay the same. The tenor of M.O.1 only shows that the deceased was subjected to pressure for payment and was facing the financial

(2019) 3 Supreme Court Cases 315

difficulty. In M.O.1 (letter) there is nothing to indicate that there was instigation by the appellant-accused which had driven the deceased to take the extreme step of committing suicide."

05. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent No.1 as well

as learned Senior Counsel for the unofficial respondent No.2

contended that there are triable issues and factual aspects to

be examined by the learned trial Court and it is not a fit case

to quash the proceedings against the petitioner at this

juncture and the matter is to be decided after conducting trial

by the learned trial Court. While praying to dismiss the

Criminal Petition, the learned Senior Counsel for the

unofficial respondent No.2 relied upon a decision of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Didigam Bikshapathi and

another v. State of Andhra Pradesh3 wherein it was held at

Paragraph Nos.8 & 9 that:

"8. The suicide note clearly refers to the background in which the victim took the extreme step of taking

(2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases 403

away his own life by committing suicide. It is not a case where there is no reference to any act by the accused. In Netai Dutta's case (supra) para 6 it was observed as follows:

"6. In the suicide note, except referring to the name of the appellant at two places, there is no reference of any act or incidence whereby the appellant herein is alleged to have committed any willful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased Pranab Kumar Nag in committing the act of suicide. There is no case that the appellant has played any part or any role in any conspiracy, which ultimately instigated or resulted in the commission of suicide by deceased Pranab Kumar Nag."

9. In the instant case the suicide note clearly refers to the acts of the accused-appellant and the roles played by them. Therefore, the High Court rightly rejected the prayer of exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code. We make it clear that any observation made by the High Court and by us while dismissing of the present appeal shall be construed to be determinative factor in the trial."

06. In view of the facts and circumstances of the

case, it is relevant to extract Sections 306 and 420 of IPC,

which reads as:

"306. Abetment of suicide: If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."

07. It is clear that Section 306 of IPC pertains to the

offence of abetment of suicide and comprises two essential

ingredients: firstly, that a person has committed suicide; and

secondly, that such suicide was abetted by another person

through instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid. The

existence of a direct or live proximate link between the

alleged abetment and the act of suicide is a sine qua non for

attracting this provision. Similarly, Section 420 IPC, which

deals with the offence of cheating, requires the fulfilment of

specific elements namely, deception of any person,

fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver any property or

to make, alter, or destroy any valuable security or thing

capable of being converted into a valuable security. The

dishonest intention must exist at the inception of the

transaction; mere failure to fulfill a promise or breach of

contract, without such initial intent, does not constitute the

offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC.

08. In the context of the present case, it is apposite

to refer the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in

R.Shashirekha v. State of Karnataka and others 4 wherein

at Paragraph Nos.10 to 13 and 15 it was held that:

"10. Insofar as the averment in the FIR with regard to the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC is concerned, it is averred by the

2025 INSC 402

appellant-complainant that after her husband had died on 14th April 2024 by committing suicide, while she was checking the belongings of her deceased husband on 18th May 2024, she found a death note written by her husband in his own handwriting. She narrated that after she read the said death note, she came to know that her husband has incurred a loss of Rs.60 crore and was cheated by the partners of M/s. Soundarya Constructions i.e. respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein.

and 3 have given false promises and forged her husband's signature on blank cheques and blank papers and misused the same. She further stated that her husband was blackmailed by respondent Nos.2 and 3. She further states that her husband used to always be worried about the fraudulent activities of respondent Nos.2 and 3. She further states that a week before her husband's death, her husband had been receiving continuous calls from respondent Nos.2 and 3 and whenever such call was received, he used to be completely upset and decided to die by committing suicide and wrote the death note. It is also averred in the FIR that respondent No.4 was also directly involved in the above case.

11. From the allegations taken in the FIR at its face value, it can be seen that the case of the appellant-complainant is that even much before

her husband died, he used to be blackmailed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3. According to her, a week before her husband's death, her husband had been receiving continuous calls from the above persons and whenever he received such calls, he was completely upset and had decided to commit suicide.

12. If the version of the appellant-complainant is to be accepted, the question remains as to why she kept silent from 14th April 2024 till 22nd May 2024. If her husband was upset a week before his death, whenever he received calls from respondent Nos.2 and 3 and if he was blackmailed by the said respondents, then nothing could prevent the appellant-complainant from reporting this matter to the police immediately after the deceased committed suicide. Thus, it is apparent from the material on record that all these allegations were an afterthought.

13. Assuming that the allegations are true, even otherwise, the case under Section 306 of IPC would not be made out. Recently, this Court in a case of Prakash and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Another1 in which one of us (Gavai, J.) was a Member has considered all the earlier judgments with regard to Section 306 of IPC. After referring to the earlier judgments, this Court has observed thus:

"31. In the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar (supra), this Court, under similar circumstances, had quashed the chargesheet under Section 306 of the IPC against the accused-appellant. A factor that had weighed with the Court in the said case was that there was a time gap of 48 hours being the alleged instigation and the commission of suicide. This Court held that the deceased was a victim of his own conduct, unconnected with the quarrel that had ensued between him and the appellant, 48 hours prior to the commission of his suicide.

32. In the case at hand, taking the allegations in the FIR at face value, the incident at the mahalokadalat had occurred on 17th February, 2015, while the deceased had committed suicide on 20th March 2015. There is a clear gap of over a month between the incident at the mahalokadalat and the commission of suicide. We therefore find that the courts below have erroneously accepted the prosecution story that the act of suicide by the deceased

was a direct result of the words uttered by the appellants at the mahalokadalat.

................

34. .......The cardinal principle of the subject-matter at hand is that there must be a close proximity between the positive act of instigation by the accused person and the commission of suicide by the victim. The close proximity should be such as to create a clear nexus between the act of instigation and the act of suicide. As was held in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar (supra), if the deceased had taken the words of the appellants seriously, a time gap between the two incidents would have given enough time to the deceased to think over and reflect on the matter. As such, a gap of over a month would be sufficient time to dissolve the nexus or the proximate link between the two acts."

15. We are, therefore, of the considered view that even taking the allegations at its face value, it cannot be said that the allegations would amount to instigating the deceased to commit suicide. In any case, there is no reasonable nexus between

the period to which the allegations pertain and the date of death. In that view of the matter, we do not find that the learned Single Judge of the High Court has erred in quashing the proceedings under Section 306 of IPC."

09. It is manifest from the record that the deceased

and the petitioner-accused were engaged in a construction

business partnership spanning over seven years. It is not in

dispute that financial transactions had taken place between

them in the course of their business dealings. A crucial

aspect that merits serious consideration is the ambiguity

surrounding the cause of death of the deceased whether it

was natural, suicidal, or homicidal. It is evident from the

record that the brother-in-law of the complainant was under

the impression that the deceased had suffered a cardiac

arrest, allegedly due to mounting mental stress and pressure

arising from business-related issues. Neither the complainant

nor other family members made any effort to approach a

Doctor to ascertain the nature or cause of the death, and the

investigation has not yielded any findings in this regard.

Significantly, at the initial stage, the death was not suspected

to be a case of suicide, and as a result, no postmortem

examination or inquest proceedings were conducted in

accordance with law. Furthermore, the charge sheet reveals

that the remains of the deceased were completely burnt,

rendering them unsuitable for DNA analysis, and no trace of

any poisonous substance was found. This raises a grave and

reasonable doubt as to whether the remains recovered and

cremated actually belonged to the deceased or not. Such

lack of forensic and procedural verification casts serious

doubt on the identity of the deceased and undermines the

foundational basis of the prosecution's case.

10. It is important to note here that the present

criminal proceedings were initiated only after a delay of

eleven days, based solely on a handwritten document,

allegedly a suicide note, found in an almirah post the

completion of ritual mourning practices. The contents of the

purported suicide note primarily allege financial deceit and

pertain to unresolved disputes regarding partnership shares

and non-registration of certain flats. Significantly, the so-

called suicide note does not contain any direct or live

proximate act of instigation, intentional aid, or active

involvement on the part of the petitioner-accused that could

be construed as abetment within the meaning of Section 107

of IPC, so as to attract the offence under Section 306 IPC.

11. The cardinal principle governing the offence

under Section 306 of the IPC is that there must exist a close

and direct proximity between the alleged act of instigation by

the accused and the commission of suicide by the deceased.

Such proximity must be of a compelling nature, establishing

an unequivocal nexus between the conduct of the petitioner-

accused and the resultant act of suicide. Mere allegations of

harassment, discord, or strained relations, in the absence of

a specific, proximate, and overt act of incitement or

instigation, are legally insufficient to bring home the charge of

abetment. An essential factor to be weighed by the Court is

the time interval between the purported act of provocation

and the act of suicide. In the present case, it prima facie

appears that the deceased was a victim of his own subjective

apprehensions and mental state, which cannot be directly

attributed to any immediate or continuing live proximity act of

instigation on the part of the petitioner-accused. Notably,

there is no material on record to demonstrate that the

petitioner-accused had recently contacted or interacted with

the deceased in a manner that could be construed as

'abetment'. In the absence of any such cogent and live

proximate evidence, the foundational ingredients to attract

the offence under Section 306 IPC are clearly lacking.

12. A plain reading of the suicide note in the present

case reveals that it primarily pertains to the deceased's

financial distress arising from business transactions and

liabilities owed to third parties. The contents of the note, at

best, reflect the deceased's mental stress and financial

strain. However, it does not disclose any overt act of

instigation, presence of live proximate link, or intentional aid,

or active participation on the part of the petitioner-accused

that can be directly linked to the act of alleged suicide by the

deceased. Accordingly, the alleged suicide note fails to

attribute any specific, proximate, or culpable conduct to the

petitioner-accused that could be construed as having driven

the deceased to take the extreme step of ending his life.

Even if the contents of the said suicide note are taken at face

value and presumed to be true, they do not satisfy the

foundational ingredients of abetment as defined under

Section 107 of IPC, and as such, fall short of attracting the

offence punishable under Section 306 IPC.

13. A careful perusal of the entire record reveals that

there were monetary transactions between the deceased and

the petitioner-accused arising out of their joint involvement in

a construction business. The charge sheet further indicates

the name of one Gandem Ranga Rao, who is a relative of

the deceased and was serving as the site supervisor. It is

evident that he was well acquainted with the developments

and transactions between the deceased and the petitioner-

accused from the inception of the business dealings.

However, despite his material relevance to the case, the

Police failed to examine the said Mr. Gandem Ranga Rao or

record his statement under Section 161 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as 'Cr.P.C.'). This

omission to examine such a crucial witness, who could have

thrown significant light on the nature of the business

relationship and the circumstances leading to the death of

the deceased, is a serious lapse in the investigation and is a

fatal to the case of the prosecution.

14. In order to attract the penal provisions under

Section 420 of IPC, it is a well-settled principle of law that

there must be a dishonest or fraudulent intention to deceive

the complainant's father, right from the inception of the

transaction. Mere breach of contract or failure to fulfill a

promise, in the absence of such initial fraudulent intent, does

not constitute an offence under Section 420 of IPC. In the

present case, it is pertinent to note that the Memorandum of

Understanding dated 28.04.2021 contains an endorsement

made by the deceased on the reverse side of the first page,

acknowledging the settlement of accounts. This specific

endorsement indicates that the financial dealings between

the parties were subject to mutual understanding and

settlement. Therefore, in the absence of any material to

establish that the petitioner-accused had a dishonest

intention at the inception of the transaction, the essential

ingredients to sustain a charge under Section 420 of IPC are

clearly lacking.

15. In State of Haryana and others v. Ch.Bhajan Lal

and others 5 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:

"In the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the following categories of cases are given by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guide myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:

(1) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;

(2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a

1992 SCC (SUPP) 1 335

cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;

(3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;

(4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;

(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

(6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where

there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;

(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

16. Having regard to the totality of the facts and

circumstances of the case, and in light of the well-settled

principles of law enunciated by the Honourable Supreme

Court in the decisions referred above, this Court is of the

considered view that the very nature and cause of the death

of the deceased is under serious doubt and does not

conclusively point towards it being a case of 'suicide'.

Muchless, there is no material whatsoever to construe that

the death of the deceased was a 'suicidal death' attributable

to any culpable conduct, intentional aid, instigation, or active

participation on the part of the petitioner-accused. So also,

the alleged suicide note reveals that the deceased was under

considerable mental stress and financial hardship, but it does

not disclose any proximate or live link indicating intentional

instigation, active participation, or direct abetment on the part

of the petitioner-accused, as is mandatorily required to

constitute the offence of 'abetment of suicide' under Section

306 of IPC. Furthermore, the material on record does not

primafacie reflects any dishonest or fraudulent intention on

the part of the petitioner-accused from the inception of the

business transactions with the deceased so as to attract the

ingredients of the offence of cheating under Section 420 of

IPC. The investigating agency failed to examine one Mr.

Gandem Ranga Rao, whose role appears to be relevant, and

did not record his statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.,

which amounts to a significant lapse in the investigation.

Therefore, the present case falls within the parameters of

Point No.3 of Ch.Bhajan Lal's case cited supra. In the

absence of any cogent and legally admissible material

establishing the essential ingredients of the alleged offences

under Sections 306 and 420 of IPC, compelling the

petitioner-accused to undergo the rigour of trial would

amount to sheer abuse of the process of law.

17. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of

the firm opinion that the essential ingredients required to

constitute the offences punishable under Sections 306 and

420 of IPC are not made out against the petitioner-accused.

As such, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the

petitioner-accused is wholly untenable in law and liable to be

quashed.

18. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and

the criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused in

P.R.C.No.38 of 2023 on the file of the learned IV Additional

Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge

at LB Nagar, Rangareddy District, are hereby quashed.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if

any, shall stand closed.

__________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J Dated: 01-AUG-2025 Note:

Mark LR Copy.

B/o. KHRM