Telangana High Court
P. Kaushik Rao vs The State Of Telangana on 25 February, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
****
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
Criminal Revision Case Nos.916 & 917 of 2024
Between:
P.Kaushik Rao
...Petitioner/De facto complainant
v.
The State of Telangana,
rep. by its Public Prosecutor
High Court, Hyderabad
And Others
...Respondents
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 25.02.2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
____________________
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
+ Criminal Revision Case Nos.916 & 917 of 2024
% 25.02.2025
# Between:
P.Kaushik Rao
...Petitioner/De facto complainant
v.
The State of Telangana,
rep. by its Public Prosecutor
High Court, Hyderabad
And Others
...Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioners : Sri T.Niranjan Reddy
learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of Sri
T.Pranav Rao
^ Counsel for the respondent No.1 : Public Prosecutor
Counsel for respondent No.2 : Sri Damalapati Srinivas
<GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1 (1987) 1 SCC 288
2 (2021) 17 SCC 318
3
(1987) 1 SCC 288
4
AIR 1980 SC 1510
5
(2014) 10 SCC 380
6
2007 (2) ALT (Cri) 325 (A.P.)
7 2015 (3) ALT (Crl.) 339 (A.P)
3
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.916 & 917 OF 2024
COMMON ORDER:
1 Aggrieved by the docket orders dated 08.6.2024 passed in
Criminal M.P.Nos.623 of 2024 in C.C.No.9286 of 2022 and Criminal
M.P.No.622 of 2024 in C.C.No.9288 of 2022 passed by learned I
Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-IX Additional Judicial Magistrate of
First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, permitting withdrawal
of prosecution against the petitioners, these two revisions have been
preferred by the de-facto complainant.
2 The factual matrix was that M/s. Associated Broadcasting
Company (P) Limited (ABCPL) is running various TV channels under the
Brand "TV9" and the companies namely M/s. Chintalapati Holdings
Pvt. Ltd and iLabs Venture Capital Fund who had majority companies,
offered to sell their entire shareholding of ABCPL and approached the
M/s. Alanda Media (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant').
Thereupon, the complainant acquired majority equity shareholding
offered by ABCPL as per the share purchase agreement entered on
24.8.2018 and the entire consideration for purchase of equity had
been paid on the even date. Subsequently, the majority shares of
ABCPL were transferred in favour of the complainant through DMat
account on 27.8.2018. Further the ABCPL had noted the transfer of
shares in favourof the complainant by passing necessary resolutions.
Pursuant to the said transfer of shares, the complainant became the
majority stake holders of M/s.ABCPL and their nominee Directors were
also appointed on the Board of ABCPL duly obtaining the approval of
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (MIB), Government of India
under the applicable guidelines vide their letter dated 29.3.2019. The
entire transactions have taken place in accordance with law and there
is no grievance whatsoever to the shareholders who have sold their
equity to the complainant in ABCPL, which is operating television
channels in several languages under the brand "TV9". Further, they
conducted the Board Meeting on 23.4.2019.
3 It is further stated as a part of criminal conspiracy and with an
ill-will to derail the operations of the company and thereby cause
wrongful financial loss and damage to the reputation of the company,
accused Nos.1 and 2 together created false and fabricated ante dated
documents with malice and fraudulent intention wherein A.2 allegedly
entered into share purchase agreement on ante date i.e. 20.02.2018
with A.1 Ravi Prakash and paid an amount of Rs.20.00 lakhs for
acquiring 40,000 equity shares belonging to Ravi Prakash-A.1 in ABCPL.
Since the transfer of shares was not effected till date, A.2-Shivaji
allegedly issued a notice to A.1-Ravi Prakash on 15.3.2019 and
immediately A.1 has also allegedly issued a reply on 17.3.2019. He
further refused to conduct board meetings by showing all these
frivolous issues. Hence the complainant lodged a complaint which was
registered as a case in Cr.No.84 of 2019 for the offences punishable
under Sections 406, 420, 467, 469, 471 and 120(B) IPC and under
Sections 66 and 72 of the IT Act. After completion of investigation the
police filed charge sheet against the respondent Nos.2 to 7 herein for
the above said offences. The said case was taken on file in
C.C.No.9286 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the learned IX
Additional Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-I AJCJ at Kukatpally,
Cyberabad.
4 With identical contents the very same complainant lodged
another complaint with the Cyberabad Cyber crime police, which was
registered as Cr.No.87 of 2019 on 30.4.2019 for the offences
punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120(B) IPC and Sections
66-C, 66-D of IT Act, 2000. The further allegations in the said
complaint were that Ravi Prakash, with an intention to prevent the
uploading the names of new additional directors by filing Form No.DIR
- 12 to the ROC and to stop the four new Directors in functioning in
such a way to protect the best interest of the company, has
committed the crime of forgery of the signature of the company
Secretary - Mr. Devender Agarwal and uploaded the forged document
and has given false information of resignation of Mr. Devender Agarwal
as Company Secretary to the Registrar of Companies though the
Company Secretary had attended to his duties till the A.N. of
27.4.2019. Thus, the accused in this case were acting detrimental to
the interest of the company by forging false documents. The said case
was also registered as C.C.No.9288 of 2022 for the offences punishable
under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120(B) IPC and Sections 66-C, 66-D of
IT Act
5 While both the above cases were pending before the Court of
the learned IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-I AJCJ at
Kukatpally, Cyberabad, the Assistant Public Prosecutor, representing
the State, filed two Criminal M.Ps, vide Crl.M.P.No.622 of 2024 in
C.C.No.9288 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.623 of 2024 in C.C.No.9286 of
2022 seeking permission of the Court to put on record the withdrawal
of prosecution by the State against the accused. The learned trial
Court by order dated 08.6.2024 allowed both the Criminal M.Ps and
accorded permission to withdraw from prosecution in the above two
cases. Aggrieved thereby, the complainant filed these two criminal
revision cases.
6 As could be seen from the averments made in both the Crl.M.Ps
the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor urged the following grounds
before the Court below while seeking permission to withdraw from
prosecution against the accused persons:
"8(1) The prospect of successful prosecution is very bleak and remote
in the light of the evidence and material made available to the
prosecution as well as in light of the impediments towards the
admissibility of most documentary evidence in the Hon'ble Court.
8(2) The Media be it Print or Digital is considered the Fourth Pillar of
our democracy and its in public interest that the media agencies and
the journalists involved be free of any restrictions (within the
permissible limitations of the Constitutional guarantees), to express
themselves and conduct their business without any coercion or undue
pressure and its in public interest to safeguard the same, especially in
the light of the current situations.
8(3) Additionally in this case, going by the material made available to
the prosecution in the larger sense the implication of persons seems as
a result of political personal and civil in nature vendetta.
8(4) The case materials available when examined in detail, envisioning
the arm chair approach of the Hon'ble judiciary, encompasses a civil in
nature dispute, cloaked and coloured into a criminal case, whereas the
NCLT, Civil Courts and likewise adjudicational forums are more
truthfully competent rather than an criminal trial more so since its
concerned with copy right violations or passing off or shareholding
patterns and violations thereof per se civil and commercial
transactional disputes in nature, and any rightful justice to be rendered
would be only upon relief upon those aspects and not the possible
remote incarceration of the purported accused persons except to
incapacitate them with a dangling sword to gain demanded outcome at
one's whims and fancies;
8(5) Looking at the flow of the proposal and trusting the wisdom and
application of the mind of the Commissioner of Police, and thereon the
Director General of Police and thereof the State Government, it can be
safely presumed that there is inexpediency of the prosecution for
reasons of the State of Telangana and its public policy and considering
the facts and materials of the case in the wider sense of public welfare
and maintenance of peace in society with freedoms enshrined in the
constitution by the State of Telangana."
7 Basing on the above the averments made in the Crl.M.Ps, the
trial Court, vide order dated 8.6.2024, passed the following orders in
both the petitions:
"Heard. Considering the G.Os by State & the reasons furnished
by the learned APPO, permission & consent is hereby accorded to
withdraw from prosecution & the petition is allowed".
8 Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, the learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of Sri T.Pranav Rao, the learned counsel for the complainant
submitted that the learned Magistrate has not considered the effect of
withdrawal of prosecution on the society, particularly, when the
averments in the charge sheets are very serious in nature. He further
submitted that the learned Magistrate failed to see that final report
was filed categorically stating that the accused committed the offence
of forgery, producing forged documents before the competent
authority and committed the offence of cheating, which allegations
are substantiated by the statements recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C as well
as the forensic lab report. It is his predominant contention that the
Public Prosecutor who is officer of the Court can file application on his
own satisfaction and that the Public Prosecutor has to file application
under Section 321 Cr.P.C. only on being satisfied that valid reasons
are made out to withdraw the prosecution. But in the present case,
the application filed by the Public Prosecutor does not explicitly
mention any of the grounds germane for withdrawal of prosecution.
He further contended that the Public Prosecutor without even
referring to the 164 Cr.P.C. statements of the witnesses and the FSL
report, filed the application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. He further
submitted that the Public Prosecutor before Court below has not
applied his mind independently but simply followed the directions
given by the superior police officers as well as the Government and
the Court below also has not considered the said aspect before passing
the impugned orders, which are mechanical. Hence he prayed to set
aside the impugned orders.
9 On the other hand, Sri Damalapati Srinivas, learned senior
counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 submitted that the
complainant filed the present revision only to harass this respondent
and causing mental agony as the withdrawal of prosecution case
ultimately is likely to end in acquittal and no public cause or policy is
affected by such withdrawal. He further submitted that withdrawal of
the case is based on a G.O. dated 15.3.2024 issued by the Government
of Telangana and that G.O. is based on the detailed report given by
the Director General of Police, Telangana and after considering
various aspects and also based on perusal of records connected to the
case, as such the impugned orders cannot be treated as non-reasoned
order. At best the complainant ought to have challenged the said G.O
instead of challenging the impugned orders by way of these revision
cases. The consent given by the learned Magistrate is based on the
application of mind by the learned APP and it cannot be termed as a
simple docket order. In support of his contentions, the learned senior
counsel relied on the following judgments: 1) Sheonandan Paswan vs.
State of Bihar 1 2) State of Kerala Vs. K.Ajith 2.
10 On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that
the impugned order is based on the sound reasoning submitted by the
Assistant Public Prosecutor before the Court below and hence the
impugned orders need no interference.
11 In the light of the above factual scenario it is apt to refer to the
relevant section of law, which envisages as under:
12 Section 321 Cr.P.C entrusts the decision to withdraw from a
prosecution to the public prosecutor but the consent of the court is
required for withdrawal; the public prosecutor may withdraw from a
prosecution not merely on the ground of paucity of evidence but also
to further the broad ends of public justice; the public prosecutor must
formulate an independent opinion; mere fact that initiative has come
from the government will not vitiate an application for withdrawal.
1 (1987) 1 SCC 288
2 (2021) 17 SCC 318
13 In The State of Kerala vs. K. Ajith and Ors.(2 supra) it was held
that before deciding whether to grant its consent the court must be
satisfied that: (a) The function of the public prosecutor not improperly
exercised; (b) application made in good faith, in the interest of public
policy and justice; (c) application does not suffer from such
improprieties or illegalities as would cause manifest injustice if
consent were to be given; (d) The grant of consent sub-serves the
administration of justice; and (e) permission not sought with an
ulterior purpose; (vi) Court would be justified in scrutinizing the
nature and gravity of the offence ; and (vii) Court may interfere in a
case where there has been a failure of the trial judge to apply the
correct principles.
14 Sheonandan Paswan vs. State of Bihar 3 wherein the Hon'ble
apex Court held at Para Nos.78, 79 and 80 as follows:
78. The section gives no indication as to the grounds on which the Public
Prosecutor may make the application, or the considerations on which the court is to
grant its consent. The initiative is that of the Public Prosecutor and what the court
has to do is only to give its consent and not to determine any matter judicially. The
judicial function implicit in the exercise of the judicial discretion for granting the
consent would normally mean that the court has to satisfy itself that the executive
function of the Public Prosecutor has not been improperly exercised, or that it is not
an attempt to interfere with the normal course of justice for illegitimate reasons or
purposes.
79. The court's function is to give consent. This section does not obligate the
court to record reasons before consent is given. However, I should not be taken to
hold that consent of the court is a matter of course. When the Public Prosecutor
makes the application for withdrawal after taking into consideration all the materials
before him, the court exercises its judicial discretion by considering such materials
and on such consideration, either gives consent or declines consent. The section
(1987) 1 SCC 288
should not be construed to mean that the court has to give a detailed reasoned order
when it gives consent. If on a reading of the order giving consent, a higher court is
satisfied that such consent was given on an overall consideration of the materials
available, the order giving consent has necessarily to be upheld.
80. It would be useful to compare the scope of the court's power under Section
321 with some other sections of the Code. There are some provisos in the Code which
relate to the manner in which courts have to exercise their jurisdiction in pending
cases when applications are made for their withdrawal or when the court finds that
there is no ground to proceed with the cases. Sections 203, 227, 245, 257 and 258 are
some such sections. Section 203 of Criminal Procedure Code empowers a Magistrate to
dismiss a complaint at the initial stage itself if he is of opinion that there is no
sufficient ground for proceeding. .........."
15 Rajender Kumar Jain vs. State through Spl. Police
Establishment and Others 4 wherein the Hon'ble apex Court held at
Para Nos. 14 and 25 as under:
14. We have referred to the precedents of this Court where it has been said that
paucity of evidence is not the only ground on which the public prosecutor may
withdraw from the prosecution. In the past, we have often known how expedient and
necessary it is in the public interest for the public prosecutor to withdraw from
prosecutions arising out of mass agitations, communal riots, regional disputes,
industrial conflicts, student unrest etc. Wherever issues involve the emotions and
there is a surcharge of violence in the atmosphere it has often been found necessary
to withdraw from prosecutions in order to restore peace, to free the atmosphere from
the surcharge of violence, to bring about a peaceful settlement of issues and to
preserve the calm which may follow the storm. To persist with prosecutions where
emotive issues are involved in the name of vindicating the law may even be utterly
counter-productive. An elected Government, sensitive and responsive to the feelings
and emotions of the people, will be amply justified if for the purpose of creating an
atmosphere of goodwill or for the purpose of not disturbing a calm which has
descended it decides not to prosecute the offenders involved or not to proceed
further with prosecution already launched. In such matters who but the Government
can and should decide, in the first instance, whether it should be baneful or beneficial
to launch or continue prosecutions. If the Government decides that it would be in the
public interest to withdraw from prosecutions, how is the Government to go about this
task?
25. Before bidding farewell to these cases it may be appropriate for us to say that
criminal justice is not a plaything and a criminal court is not a playground for
politicking. Political fervour should not convert prosecution into persecution, nor
political favour reward wrongdoer by withdrawal from prosecution. If political
fortunes are allowed to be reflected in the processes of the court very soon the
credibility of the rule of law will be lost. So we insist that courts when moved for
permission for withdrawal from prosecution must be vigilant and inform themselves
fully before granting consent. While it would be obnoxious and objectionable for a
Public Prosecutor to allow himself to be ordered about, he should appraise himself
from the government and thereafter appraise the court the host of factors relevant to
AIR 1980 SC 1510
the question of withdrawal from the cases. But under no circumstances should he
allow himself to become anyone's stooge.
16 Bairam Muralidhar vs. State of Andhra Pradesh5 wherein the
Hon'ble apex Court held at Para Nos.18 and 19 as under:
18. The central question is whether the Public Prosecutor has really applied his
mind to all the relevant materials on record and satisfied himself that the withdrawal
from the prosecution would subserve the cause of public interest or not. Be it stated,
it is the obligation of the Public Prosecutor to state what material he has considered.
It has to be set out in brief. The court as has been held in Abdul Karim case{(2008) 8
SCC 710}, is required to give an informed consent. It is obligatory on the part of the
court to satisfy itself that from the material it can reasonably be held that the
withdrawal of the prosecution would serve the public interest. It is not within the
domain of the court to weigh the material. However, it is necessary on the part of the
court to see whether the grant of consent would thwart or stifle the course of law or
cause manifest injustice. A court while giving consent under Section 321 of the Code is
required to exercise its judicial discretion, and judicial discretion, as settled in law, is
not to be exercised in a mechanical manner. The court cannot give such consent on a
mere asking. It is expected of the court to consider the material on record to see that
the application had been filed in good faith and it is in the interest of public interest
and justice. Another aspect the court is obliged to see is whether such withdrawal
would advance the cause of justice. It requires exercise of careful and concerned
discretion because certain crimes are against the State and the society as a collective
demands justice to be done. That maintains the law and order situation in the society.
The Public Prosecutor cannot act like the post office on behalf of the State
Government. He is required to act in good faith, peruse the materials on record and
form an independent opinion that the withdrawal of the case would really subserve
the public interest at large. An order of the Government on the Public Prosecutor in
this regard is not binding. He cannot remain oblivious to his lawful obligations under
the Code. He is required to constantly remember his duty to the court as well as his
duty to the collective.
19. In the case at hand, as the application filed by the Public Prosecutor would
show that he had mechanically stated about the conditions precedent, it cannot be
construed that he has really perused the materials and applied his independent mind
solely because he has so stated. The application must indicate perusal of the
materials by stating what are the materials he has perused, may be in brief, and
whether such withdrawal of the prosecution would serve public interest and how he
has formed his independent opinion. As we perceive, the learned Public Prosecutor
has been totally guided by the order of the Government and really not applied his
mind to the facts of the case. The learned trial Judge as well as the High Court has
observed that it is a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act. They have taken
note of the fact that the State Government had already granted sanction. It is also
noticeable that the Anti-Corruption Bureau has found there was no justification of
withdrawal of the prosecution.
(2014) 10 SCC 380
17 M. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh6 wherein
this Court held at Para No.12 as follows:
12. In the present case, the Public Prosecutor did not file any letter addressed by the
Government to him to file an Application along with the G.O., before the Court to
enable the Court to give the consent. The Public Prosecutor did not assign any reasons
whether in the interest of public the prosecution has to be withdrawn. This is a case
where there is an allegation of acceptance of bribe under the Prevention of
Corruption Act. The Public Prosecutor did not mention in the Application that there is
no likelihood of conviction of the accused from the evidence so far adduced. Neither
the Government nor the Public Prosecutor assigned any reasons and there is no
indication in the Application whether the Public Prosecutor has applied his mind.
There is an allegation of demanding and accepting bribe against the accused. There is
no public interest involved in it. The Government deciding to refer the matter to the
Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings by itself is not a ground for withdrawal of the
case. The Public Prosecutor did not mention how the withdrawal meets the ends of
justice, social, economic and political. He also did not mention whether there is any
public policy involved in this case and broader public interest like maintenance of law
and order, maintenance of public peace and harmony. He also did not mention that
the withdrawal of the case against the accused will not stifle or thwart the process of
law or cause manifest injustice. There is no indication that the Public Prosecutor
considered the material and in good faith reached the conclusion that the withdrawal
from the prosecution will serve the public interest. By withdrawing the case, the
prosecution should not reward the wrongdoer and if the withdrawal is made on
irrelevant considerations, the credibility of the Rule of Law will be lost. The
withdrawal can be allowed only in the interest of justice. There are no sufficient
circumstances for the Court that the withdrawal of the prosecution against the
accused would advance the cause of justice.
18 In S.R. Laxmirajam vs. State of A.P 7 this Court held at Para
Nos.11 and 12 as follows:
11. Even if the Government issued the orders, an obligation is cast upon the
prosecutor to consider the facts and circumstances independently and impartially and
he being a responsible Officer of the Court is required to file a petition in the Court
setting out the reasons as to why the prosecution is sought to be withdrawn. In the
instant case, the petition filed by the Public Prosecutor do not contain the requisite
particulars to show that an impartial and independent decision was taken by the
Public Prosecutor in the matter of seeking permission to withdraw the prosecution and
that the said withdrawal was within the larger interest of the public.
12. The Court is empowered with the discretion of either giving the consent or
refusing to accord permission to withdraw from the prosecution if it is satisfied that
the said withdrawal from the prosecution is not in the public interest or will sub serve
any of the constitutional obligations of the State. Solemn obligation is cast on the
three Agencies to act to uphold the Rule of Law. Deviation if any, should be only in
exceptional cases and for the larger good of the society. If a Public Servant is caught
red handed demanding and accepting bribe, and if prosecution against such Officer is
2007 (2) ALT (Cri) 325 (A.P.)
2015 (3) ALT (Crl.) 339 (A.P)
to be dropped on ground such as retirement on superannuation it will amount to
making mockery of the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act and the provisions of
Conduct Rules of Civil Servants.
19 In The State of Kerala vs. K. Ajith and Ors. (2 supra) the
Hon'ble Supreme Court enunciated certain guidelines how to deal with
a petition filed under Section 321 Cr.P.C. In the instant case none of
the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court were complied
with by the State while applying for withdrawal of prosecution against
the respondents herein because it was not at all stated in the said
petitions as to how the said applications were made in good faith and
in the interest of public policy and justice. As held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Rajender Kumar Jain case (4 supra) withdrawal of
prosecution may be urged by the Public Prosecutor in cases arising out
of mass agitations communal riots, regional disputes, industrial
conflicts or student unrest etc., Wherever issues involve the emotions
and there is a surcharge of violence in the atmosphere it has often
been found necessary to withdraw from prosecutions in order to
restore peace, to free the atmosphere from the surcharge of violence,
to bring about a peaceful settlement of issues and to preserve the
calm which may follow the storm. But here in the instant case, such of
those circumstances or situations are absent. The dispute is with
regard to the criminal conspiracy played by the respondents against a
broadcasting company in deleting and adding the names of Directors.
The Court has to decide whether the respondents have played any
fraud or cheated the de facto complainant because in the cases on
hand the learned Magistrate failed to see that final report was filed
categorically stating that the accused committed the offence of
forgery, producing forged documents before the competent authority
and committed the offence of cheating, which allegations are
substantiated by the statements recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C as well as
the forensic lab report. Therefore, the Public Prosecutor before Court
below has not applied his mind independently but simply followed the
directions given by the superior police officers as well as the
Government and the Court below also has not considered the said
aspect before passing the impugned orders, which are mechanical.
20 More so, the charge sheets filed in both the cases would go to
show that one Mr.Mahesh Grandhi was not charge sheeted.
Surprisingly, in the petitions filed before the learned trial Court the
prosecution has arrayed him as one of the petitioners. The learned
trial Court lost sight of this aspect while ordering the petitions filed
for withdrawal of prosecution. Hence the orders impugned in these
two revision cases are nothing but non-application of mind by the
learned trial Court since it has not even gone through the cause title
wherein who were arrayed as accused / petitioners.
21 In the light of the aforesaid reasoning and also in the light of the
ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Keala Vs.
K.Ajith (2 supra), this Court is of the view that the learned trial Court
has passed the impugned orders in a most mechanical and casual
manner. Hence I am of the considered view that the same need to be
set aside.
22 Accordingly, these two criminal revision cases are allowed, the
orders dated 08.6.2024 passed in Criminal M.P.Nos.623 of 2024 in
C.C.No.9286 of 2022 and Criminal M.P.No.622 of 2024 in C.C.No.9288
of 2022 passed by learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-IX
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at
Kukatpally, permitting withdrawal of prosecution against the accused
are hereby set aside. The matters are restored to the file of the
learned trial Court. The learned trial Court is directed to dispose of
C.C.No.9286 of 2022 and C.C.No.9288 of 2022 as expeditiously as
possible in accordance with law and uninfluenced with any of the
observations made herein.
23 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any pending in these
criminal revision cases shall stand closed.
_______________________
JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
Date: 25--02--2025
L.R copy be marked B/o Kvsn
