Telangana High Court
Sushil Thakur vs The State Of Telangana on 9 September, 2025
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.15162 OF 2024
O R D E R:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short 'BNSS') by
petitioner/accused No.1 to quash the docket order dated
27.03.2024 passed in CC.No.3180 of 2024 pending on the file
of XV Magistrate, Additional Chief Metropolitan prayer at
Hyderabad or to Stay all further proceedings in CC.No.3180
of 2024.
2. Heard Mr. G.Srinivas and Mr. Avinash Desai, learned
counsels for petitioner and Mr. Surepalli Prashanth, learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State. Perused
the material on record.
3. Brief Facts:
An FIR bearing Crime No.38 of 2020 was registered in
Women Police Station (WPS), Begumpet, against accused Nos.1
to 4 on the basis of complaint of respondent No.2. Marriage of
petitioner/accused No.1 was performed with respondent No.2
on 12.06.2020 at Hyderabad. An amount of Rs.1,50,000/- in
JAK, J
CRLP_15162_2024
cash, 30 tulas of gold and 30 tulas of silver is alleged to have
been given. After 2 months of marriage, they left for United
Kingdom, they are blessed with a female child. In May, 2014,
she returned to India with the baby girl (and accused No.1).
It is alleged that accused No.3 started harassing her mentally
for giving birth to baby girl. In June, 2014, she secured a job in
Mumbai and shifted to Mumbai. It is further alleged that from
July, 2014, accused No.1 started harassing physically, mentally
and abusing in filthy language for giving birth to a girl child.
That, he demanded Rs.15,00,000/- additional dowry. Accused
No.1 filed a divorce OP.No.1545 of 2014. Complainant further
states that efforts were made to patch up, but, were of no use.
That in 2015, she filed a complaint, registered as an FIR under
Section 498A of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').
Other relevant facts:
4. Criminal petition bearing number Crl.P.No.3566 of 2020
came to be filed by accused Nos.2 to 4 to quash proceedings in
Crime No.38 of 2020 of WPS, Begumpet. This Court by order,
dated 01.11.2023, allowed the criminal petition and quashed
the proceedings against accused Nos.2 to 4 in Crime No.38 of
2020 of WPS, Begumpet.
JAK, J
CRLP_15162_2024
5. Criminal petition bearing number 5520 of 2020 was filed
by petitioner/accused No.1 to quash proceedings in Crime
No.38 of 2020 of WPS, Begumpet. This Court by order, dated
11.11.2020, in Crl.P.No.5520 of 2020 passed the following
order:
"Sri N. Mahesh Raje, learned counsel for the
petitioner/A-1 would submit that respondent No.2 has filed a
complaint, which was registered as F.I.R.No.200 of 2014 for
the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC before the
SHO, Women Police Station, Begumpet, Hyderabad, and the
same was ended in acquittal vide judgment dated 01.04.2016
in C.C.No.192 of 2015 passed by XV Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Special Court for the trial of Video
Piracy Cases, Hyderabad. Therefore, respondent No.2 herein,
having knowledge that A-1 is staying in London, has filed the
present complaint in Crime No.38 of 2020 of SHO, Women
Police Station, Begumpet, Hyderabad, with all false and
baseless allegations implicating the petitioner/A-1 and other
accused also. This court vide order dated 10-09-2020 in Crl.
P.No.3566 of 2020 granted stay of all further proceedings in
Crime No.38 of 2020 including arrest of A-2 to A-4. The
matter requires examination.
Therefore, there shall be interim stay of all further
proceedings in Crime No.38 of 2020 of SHO, Women Police
Station, Begumpet, Hyderabad, including arrest of the
petitioner/A-1."
6. Crl.P.No.5520 of 2020 is pending on the file of this Court
and no further orders are passed.
7. An interim stay of all further proceedings in Crime No.38 of
2020 including arrest of petitioner/Al is in force, no steps can
be initiated (by the department personnel), including
investigation unless interim stay is vacated. Vacate stay
JAK, J
CRLP_15162_2024
petition is filed on 27.04.2022, but no orders are passed till
date.
8. A notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. dated 02.02.2024
was issued to petitioner/accused No.1. By reply dated
24.02.2024, petitioner/accused No.1 brought to the notice of
the Officer (SHO, WPS, Begumpet) about the order, dated
11.11.2020, in Crl.P.No.5520 of 2020 that this Court granted
interim stay of all further proceedings in Crime No.38 of 2020
of WPS, Begumpet, including arrest of petitioner/accused No.1.
Copy of reply is annexed at page No. 28 of the material papers
of this petition. The relevant paragraph(s) of the reply are as
follows:
"The undersigned submits that the Defacto Complainant
had categorically stated in the evidence deposed by her in CC
No.192 of 2015 that the undersigned and another had not
harassed her, and that the Hon'ble XIII ACMM had honorably
acquitted the undersigned and another. That apart the
undersigned and the Defacto Complainant had been living
separately from July 2014 as such any allegation leveled by
the Defacto Complainant cannot be taken cognizance of by
the investigating officer. It is relevant to state that the
Accused in the present crime are roped in by the Defacto
Complainant to harass the undersigned and see to it that the
undersigned coves down to said arm twisting methods and
gain an undue advantage of the same. It is pertinent to point
out that the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana had quashed
the crime against A2, A3 & A4 on 01.11.2023 vide CRLP. No.
3566/2020. It is needless to state that the undersigned is
residing in London as such there is no communication
between the Defacto Complainant and the undersigned. Also,
in response to Cr No. 38/2020 I replied to 41 CRPC notice on
31st Aug 2020 followed by interim stay granted by Hon. High
Court Hyderabad vide order dated 11th Nov 2020 for
JAK, J
CRLP_15162_2024
CRLP.No.5520 of 2020 (copy enclosed for your attention). In
view of the above Interim orders of Hon'ble High Court of
Telangana, the investigating officer has no right to issue a
notice U/s. 41A Cr.P.C. it is needless to state that unless and
until the same is vacated the Investigating officer cannot
proceed with the investigating Cr.No.38 of 2020.
The undersigned submits that there is absolutely no iota
of evidence to connect the allegations leveled against him and
that the undersigned request the investigating officer to file a
final report by closing as lack of evidence. It is pertinent to
point out that the undersigned on 06.06.2020 had forwarded
a FIR, Judgment copy in CC.No.192 of 2015, deposition of
the De facto complainant in CC.No.192 of 2015, Petition in
OP.No.1545 of 2014, I.A.No.213 of 2017 and M.C.No.82 of
2016 and order copy in Crl.P.No.3566 of 2020. In view of the
same, I request the investigating officer to peruse the same
and file a final report."
9. A charge sheet bearing No.3180 of 2024 (undated) is filed
in the Court of XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
Nampally, Hyderabad, charging petitioner/Al for the offences
under Sections 498A, 494 and 406 of IPC by Inspector of Police,
WPS, Begumpet. In the charge sheet, in Cl.No. 7, it is reflected
that petitioner/Al was absconding and a notice under Section
41A was sent through Whatsapp, served on 02.02.2024. These
proceedings are initiated in spite of the interim stay being in
force.
10. To worsen the matters, an application was filed before the
XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally,
Hyderabad, by the WPS, Begumpet, for issuance of NBW
against petitioner/Al. The XV Additional Chief Metropolitan
JAK, J
CRLP_15162_2024
Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, by docket order, dated
27.03.2024 passed the following order:
"Perused the statements of the LW1 to LW7 charge sheet
contents and other documents filed by the investigation
officer, which made out the prima-facie case against the Al
for the allegations levelled against him U/s.498-A, 406, 494
of IPC against A1. The office is directed to register this case
as CC.No.3108 of 2024. Issue NBW to A1. Call on
25.11.2024."
11. This order is under challenge.
12. When there is an interim stay/interim order of stay of all
further proceedings including the arrest (of petitioner/accused
No.1), is in force, the Station House Officer (SHO) could not
have initiated any steps (further proceedings) such as filing of
charge sheet etc. An application to vacate the stay
order/interim order granted is pending on the file of this Court
till date.
13. Question which begs consideration is whether such acts
of the officer are valid in the eye of law, if unknown to law, can
be condoned or not.
14. This Court requested the learned Public Prosecutor to file
a counter affidavit to afford an opportunity to the SHO, WPS,
Begumpet. Two affidavits are filed, one is an unconditional
apology affidavit vide USR No.30413 of 2025, the other a
JAK, J
CRLP_15162_2024
counter affidavit vide USR No.43123 of 2025. In the
unconditional apology affidavit filed on 18.03.2025. Paragraph
Nos.3 and 4 are as follows:
"3. It is respectfully submitted that in respect of A-1,
initially A-1 filed Crl.P.No.5520 of 2020 seeking quashment
of Crime No.38 of 2020 of WPS Begumpet and the Hon'ble
Court granted interim order in favour of A-1 including stay of
arrest of A-1 and due to oversight and non availability of
some of the records in the above mentioned case,
unfortunately I filed the charge sheet on 01.03.2024.
Subsequently, I came to know that even my predecessor also
filed the vacate stay petition in Crl.P.No.5520 of 2020 and
when we intended and wished to bring the said mistake to
the learned State Public Prosecutor, meanwhile the A-1 filed
Crl.P.No.15162 of 2024 before the Hon'ble Court against the
Docket Order passed by the trial court, the said Docket
Order disclose that the trial court issued NBW against A-1,
thereby A-1 again filed the quash petition seeking quashment
of Docket Order dated 27.03.2024 passed by the XV
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Initially
the Hon'ble Court not passed any order in Crl.P.No.15162 of
2024, said criminal petition listed before the Hon'ble Court
on 13.03.2025, the Hon'ble Court after hearing the matter
found fault against me and ordered for appearance of the
Deputy Commissioner of Police, North Zone and accordingly
Deputy Commissioner of Police, North Zone personally
appeared before the Hon'ble Court on 17.03.2025.
4. It is respectfully submitted that the filing of charge
sheet before the trial court on 01.03.2024, it is neither
intentional nor willful, but due to oversight, therefore the
Hon'ble Court may pardon me and hereafter I wont commit
this type of mistake again, hence consider the same as first
mistake. I humbly submit that I am having highest respect
towards the Hon'ble Courts and Hon'ble Courts Orders and I
did not have any intention to disobey the orders of the
Hon'ble Court, except by oversight I filed charge sheet."
15. On perusal of the affidavit, it is observed that officer is
taking shelter under the guise of "oversight and non availability
of records". Nowhere, it is averred that a search was conducted
JAK, J
CRLP_15162_2024
to unearth the records. It is not the case of the deponent that
he was unaware of issuance of notice under Section 41A
Cr.P.C. and the filing of charge sheet and of NBW. (Further, it is
not even averred in the affidavit as to the date on which the
charge sheet was filed and when the records are traced). Such
averments of oversight and non-availability of records are self
serving in nature, no substantiation.
16. In the counter affidavit filed vide USR No.43123 of 2025,
at paragraph Nos.6 and 7 it is reflected that the issuance of
41A notice, filing of charge sheet are "due to oversight". It defies
the imagination of this Court as to what exactly the officer
means by "oversight". In the unconditional apology affidavit, the
officer states "oversight and non availability of records", while in
the counter affidavit, the same officer states that it is "due to
oversight". Reasons stated are apparently self serving in nature,
do not inspire the confidence of this Court. It was brought to
the notice of SHO, that there is a stay order, in a reply to 41A
notice, by the petitioner/accused herein.
17. The intent, the carelessness, the brazen approach of the
officer in issuing notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C., filing of
charge sheet and inviting an order of NBW are acts borne by
JAK, J
CRLP_15162_2024
record. They clearly demonstrate that accused/petitioner No.1
was put to unnecessary harassment.
18. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that interim stay
of all further proceedings in Crime No.38 of 2020 including the
arrest of the petitioner was granted by this Court in 2020 itself
and a vacate stay petition filed in the year 2022 is pending for
consideration, till date.
19. Acts of SHO clearly reflect the interference with freedom
and liberty of individual secured by proceedings in accordance
with law. The Hon'ble Apex Court highlighted the importance
of protecting the freedom and liberty of citizens in a catena of
cases. Such acts by officer of State cannot be condoned.
20. Motive for any act(s) is/are ascertained from the act(s)
itself and attending circumstances. If acts of officer(s) interfere
with the freedom and liberty of individual(s) in a manner
unknown to law, they certainly are acts of injustice. Motive is
established from the acts of officer in the present case.
Intention to harass the individual/citizen (accused No.1) is
visibly demonstrated by these acts.
21. Freedom and liberty of an individual should not be dealt
with, in a manner unknown to law. Freedom and liberty are the
JAK, J
CRLP_15162_2024
core fundamental rights of a citizen embedded in the
Constitution of India. When a citizen approaches the Court, the
Court grants an umbrella of protection to the accused basing
on the facts of the case. A responsible duty minded officer has
to comply with the orders of the Court. Any act(s) of
interference with the orders of the Court, impairing the freedom
and liberty of a citizen, are acts of over reach, amount to
interference in the administration of justice, such acts cannot
be condoned.
22. It is not one act of the officer noted, officer committed a
series of acts causing interference in the administration of
justice. Act of not complying with orders of Court, affecting the
freedom and liberty of the petitioner/A-1, inviting NBW,
illustrates the utter disrespect and disregard for Court orders. If
such acts are permitted to continue, they certainly wreak havoc
in a democratic setup. It is the duty and responsibility of
authorities manning the administration to secure the freedom
and liberty of citizens rather interfering in a manner unknown
to law.
23. Heard learned Public Prosecutor at length, he stated that
the officer has tendered unconditional apologies and that the
JAK, J
CRLP_15162_2024
officer would not repeat such acts in future. This matter was
entrusted by the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice.
24. Acts of the officer are brazen in nature, uncondonable,
said acts have not only interfered with the administration of
justice but have also tried to curtail the freedom and liberty of
petitioner/accused. Acts of the officer have driven the
petitioner/A-1 to file the present proceedings for no fault of his.
If such acts are left without being curtailed, they would be an
impediment in the administration of justice, and definitely have
an impact on the majesty of Courts.
25. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent
that the Rule of Law, which is supreme, has suffered a setback
by the acts of the officer. Issuance of notice under Section 41-A
Cr.P.C., filing of charge sheet, obtaining an NBW are acts
conceived meticulously, for reasons best known, in a manner
unknown to law, causing interference in the administration of
criminal justice system. More so, when an order of stay of all
further proceedings in Crime No.38 of 2020 of Station House
Officer, Women Police Station, Begumpet, including the arrest
of petitioner/A-1 is in force till date.
JAK, J
CRLP_15162_2024
26. Learned Public Prosecutor tried to impress upon this
Court that unconditional apologies have been tendered, hence,
officer be spared. Apologies tendered do not merit acceptance
in the facts of the case. Apology/apologies cannot be used as a
weapon of defence to get purged of the acts done in a manner
unknown to law, which effect the life, liberty, and freedom of a
citizen.
27. A tendency to perpetrate such acts in a democratic setup
are to be curbed and indeed require a deterrent action. Courts
have to ward off unjustified interference in the administration
of justice. Obstruction of justice is to interpose obstacles or
impediments or to hinder, impede or in any manner interrupt
or prevent the administration of justice.
28. It is evident from record that the acts of SHO, WPS,
Begumpet, perpetrated are with an oblique motive, they have
definitely hindered, hampered, impeded, the flow of
administration of justice.
29. Having considered the entire factual matrix of the case,
this Court is of the considered opinion that the Director
General of Police (DGP) be directed to make note of the acts and
conduct of the officer for causing interference in the
JAK, J
CRLP_15162_2024
administration of justice, curtailing the freedom and liberty of
petitioner in a manner unknown to law. These acts, if permitted
to go on, shatter the faith and confidence of citizens in the
Court's administration of criminal justice system in a
democratic setup. The Director General of Police shall make
note of the over reach of the acts in the Annual Confidential
Records of the officer.
30. Doctrine of 'Rule of Law' is, that, laws ought to be equal to
everyone. Rule of Law envisages the pervasiveness of spirit of
law throughout the acts of the State Government through its
offices manned by officers. Amongst challenges to Rule of Law
is the challenge of administration of criminal justice system.
Professional Integrity and standards of Officers manning the
offices of the State Government while discharging their duties
and responsibilities through their offices have an impact on the
criminal justice system.
31. For reasons aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to accede
to the submissions made by the Public Prosecutor.
32. An apology, without any remorse is no apology at all. Life
and liberty of a citizen (of petitioner herein) secured by an order
JAK, J
CRLP_15162_2024
legitimately fall within the ambit of Article 21 of Constitution of
India and cannot be devoured by such brazen acts.
33. This Court requested the Public Prosecutor to get
instructions whether the State Government was willing to pay
any compensation for driving the petitioner/accused No.1 to a
Court of law for no fault of his and for the pain and suffering he
has undergone, though he was, under the umbrella of interim
protection till date and continues to be protected. The impact of
the acts perpetrated cannot be undone with a mere apology.
Nothing was forthcoming from the Public Prosecutor on the
aspect of compensation, nothing more can be penned.
34. Interim stay of all further proceedings in Crime No.38 of
2020 of SHO, Women Police Station, Begumpet, Hyderabad,
including arrest of A-1, was granted by this Court on
11.11.2020 in Crl.P.No.5520 of 2020, they shall continue to be
in force.
35. Two prayers are sought, one seeking to quash the docket
order dated 27.03.2024 passed in C.C.No.3180 of 2024 and the
other prayer is stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.3180 of
2024 in the present criminal petition.
JAK, J
CRLP_15162_2024
i). This Court is of the opinion that such of those
proceedings initiated after 11.11.2020, i.e., from the date of
interim order in Crl.P.No.5520 of 2020, have no legs to stand
and deserve to be quashed. The acts of the officer i.e., issuance
of 41A proceedings, filing of charge sheet (numbered as
C.C.No.3180 of 2024), issuance of NBW, are all subsequent to
11.11.2020.
ii). Continuance of the docket order dated 27.03.2024
pending on the file of XV Additional Magistrate Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate would be an abuse of process of law.
To secure the ends of justice, the docket order passed on
27.03.2024 is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed.
iii). C.C.No.3180 of 2024 is consequent to the order dated
11.11.2020, as such is unsustainable, has to meet the same
fate as that of the docket order dated 27.03.2024. In other
words, C.C.No.3180 of 2024 is liable to be quashed and is
accordingly quashed.
iv). This Court is conscious of the fact that Crime No.38
of 2020 is not quashed. Crl.P.No.5520 of 2020 is still pending
on the file of this Court. Proceedings in Crime No.38 of 2020 of
JAK, J
CRLP_15162_2024
W.P.S. Begumpet pending on the file of XV Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate are stayed.
v). Needless to state that only those proceedings initiated
after 11.11.2020 do not have any legs to stand and have to be
quashed. This Court has no option, but to quash them and
quashes them, but, without impacting the pending
Crl.P.No.5520 of 2020.
vi). This Court has not expressed any opinion with regard
to the proceedings pending on the file of this Court in
Crl.P.No.5520 of 2020. Till the fate of Crime No.38 of 2020 is
adjudicated in Crl.P.No.5520 of 2020, no further steps can be
initiated by the respondent - State.
vii) Suffice to state that the stage of the case remains at
Crime No.38 of 2020, pending further adjudication in
Crl.P.No.5520 of 2020.
36. The Director General of Police is requested to record the
acts and conduct of the officer (Inspector of Police, Kasarla
Satyanarayana S/o Sri Pattabhi Ramaiah, aged 49 years) in his
Annual Confidential Record and issue appropriate proceedings
for necessary action. The acts of the officer amount to
interference with administration of justice and impacted the
JAK, J
CRLP_15162_2024
majesty of the Courts for non-compliance, curtailing the
freedom and liberty of the petitioner, in a manner unknown to
law (NBW).
37. For reasons aforesaid, Criminal Petition is allowed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
___________________________
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J
Date: 09.09.2025
plp
Note: Copy of this order be marked to the
Director General of Police for issuance of
necessary proceedings.
