Telangana High Court
Denthuluri Balramaraju vs The State Of Telangana on 5 February, 2025
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8402 OF 2023
O R D E R:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused
Nos.36, 38, 39, 40 and 41 seeking to quash the proceedings
against them in S.C.No.284 of 2022 on the file of the learned
Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Additional District & Sessions
Judge, Sangareddy District at Sangareddy (for short, "the trial
Court") registered for the offences punishable under Sections
147, 148, 341, 427, 302, 307, 203 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code
and Section 27 of Indian Arms Act.
2. Heard Mr.C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
appearing for respondent No.1-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that accused
Nos.1 to 31, 33 to 35 and 37 were tried and acquitted vide
judgment dated 04.07.2019 in S.C.No.166 of 2017 for the
offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 427, 302, 307, 203 r/w
149 of Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of Indian Arms Act. As
the petitioners were absconding the case against the petitioners
herein was split up in S.C.No.284 of 2022. Later, the petitioners
surrendered before the concerned Magistrate and the learned
Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Prohibition and Excise
Offences Court, Sangareddy took cognizance against the
petitioners herein for the alleged offences vide P.R.C.No.37 of
2019 dated 04.11.2022 and released accused Nos.36, 38 to 41 on
bail until conclusion of trial while directing them to appear before
the learned Principal District and Sessions Court, Medak, at
Sangareddy on 19.12.2022 at 10:30 A.M.
4. Learned counsel further submits that except PW25 who is
the circumstantial witness and the other official witnesses, the
prosecution could not produce any witness to support their case.
Therefore, relying on the decision passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Vishwas Bhandari Vs. State of Punjab 1, he submits
that the proceedings against the petitioners herein can be
quashed when the co-accused who are tried separately are
acquitted. Hence, he seeks to allow this Criminal Petition.
5. Opposing the same, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
submits that the matter requires to be tried. Therefore, he seeks
to dismiss this Criminal Petition.
2021 (2) SCC 605
6. Having regard to the submissions of both the learned
counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record,
this Court is of the view that the matter requires adjudication at
length and only upon conclusion of a full-fledged trial, the truth
would come to light. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to
entertain the Criminal Petition.
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. However,
as sought by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the
appearance of the petitioners, before the trial Court, in
S.C.No.284 of 2022 is dispensed with on each and every
adjournment unless and until specifically required by the trial
Court. If the petitioners fail to appear before the trial Court as on
the date specified, this order dispensing with their appearance
stands vacated automatically. Since, the F.I.R. is registered in the
year 2012, the trial Court is directed to conduct and conclude the
trial in S.C.No.284 of 2022, as expeditiously as possible,
preferably within a period of six (6) months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________
E.V. VENUGOPAL, J
Date: 05.02.2025
ESP
