Gonepalli Sandeep Kumar v. The State of Telanana
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2025-12-09. Gonepalli Sandeep Kumar v. The State of Telanana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
33031 [ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOUR,ABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 16292 OF 2025 Between: Gonepalli Sandeep Kumar, S/o Anjaiah Aged about. 31 Yrs, Occ. Government Servant R/o H. No. 11-21-345, NTR Nagar, Opp. White House, Chinthalakunta, L. B. Nagar Hyderabad ... PETITIONER/A-1 AND 'l . The State of Telanana, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana Hyderabad 2. Gonepalli Vidya, W/o Sandeep Kumar Aged about. 30 Yrs, Occ. Housewife RUo H. No. 3-64, Samudralingapur Village, Gambhiraopet Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District, Telangana State ... RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 528 of B. N. S. S praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may, be pleased to quash the in C. C. No.
350 of 2025 on the file of Honble Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Sircilla against the petitioner/A-1 . l. A. NO: 2OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of B. N. S. S. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may a be pleased to stay all further proceedings including personal appearance of the petitioner/A-1 in C. C. No. 350 of 2025 on the file of Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Siricilla, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition, and proper in the interests ofjustice. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri MOHD AMJAD ALI ANSARI ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla,the Additional Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER i\!
IN THE HIGH COT]RT FOR THE STATE OF I ELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREEI TVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 16292 of 2)25 Date:09. 12. 2025 Between: Gonepalli Sandeep Kumar ... Petitioner AND The State ofTelangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad and another. . Respondents ORDER This criminal petition has been filed seekin to quash ; the proceedings in C. C. No. 350 of 2025 on the fik of the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class at Sircilr:, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as accused No. I for the offer ces punishable under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita \ct, 2023 (for a short, "BNS") and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohit,i ion Act, 1961 (for short, "DP Act"). 2. Heard Mr. Mohd. Amjad Ali Ansari, learned ,ounsel for the petitioner and Mr. V. Jithender Rao, learned Ac< itional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No. I i S ate 3.
Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed the alleged offences and has been falsely implicated in the present crime. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint and the final report, the respondent No. 2 / de-facto complainant has not made any specific allegations that the petitioner harassed her for additional dowry. Hence, the ingredients of the offences under Section 85 of the BNS and Section 4 of the DP Act are not attracted. 4. He further submitted that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing Crl. P. No. 10219 of 2025 seeking to quash the proceedings, and this Court disposed of the said criminal petition on 25. 09. 2025, declining to quash the entire proceedings. However, the presence of the petitioner was dispensed with. While disposing of the criminal petition, this Court further observed that L,W. 4 and L. W. 5 are elders of the panchayat.
However, the said witnesses are not independent witnesses and are a close relatives of the de-facto complainant. Therefore, the petitioner approached the Sarampally Gram Panchayat office and obtained a certificate certifying that he is the resident of the Sarampally Village and does not belongs to the village of the de-namely Samudralingapur Village. facto-complainant Hence, by virtue of the changed circumstances and bas,: I on the said document, the petitioner is entitled for quashing oft re proceedings. 5. He further submitted that respondent No. i voluntarily left the matrimonial home of the petitioner without an', intimation, due to which the petitioner lodged a complaint, based c n which Crime No. 754 of 2024 was registered, on 07. 07. 2012. 1 for a woman missing. Hence, the continuation of the proceed. l gs against the petitioner is a clear abuse of process of law anc is liable to be quashed. 6.
Per contra, the learned Additional Pu I ic prosecutor submitted that the petitioner had earlier approachrl this Court by filing Crl. P. No. 10219 of 2025 seeking quashing r,: the very same proceedings, and this Court was not inclined to quash the proceedings. However, while disposing of the said criminal petition, the presence of the petitioner before thr: I ial Court was dispensed with, and the said order has attained Iin . lity. Even the t grounds pleaded in the present criminal petition wr re available at -of the time filing the earlier criminal petition, but lere not raised then. Entertaining the present criminal petition rvt rld amount to reviewing the earlier order dated 25. 09. 2025 passe,l by this Court, which is barred under Section 362 of the Cr. p. C. f'l,i i Court has no ( ') power to modify or review the earlier order. Therefore, the present criminal petition is not maintainable under law. 7.
Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the petitioner had initially approached this Court by filing Crl. P. No. 10219 of 2025 seeking quashing of the very same proceedings, and this Court was not inclined to quash the proceedings. However, while disposing of the said criminal petition, this Court dispensed with the presence of the petitioner before the trial Court. 8. lnsofar as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court, in its order dated 25. 09. 2025, observed that L. W. 4 and L. W. 5 are not independent eyewitnesses but are close relatives and interested witnesses of the de-focto complainant, the petitioner is entitled-to raise the same before the trial Court during the course of trial.
Merely relying upon the a certificate issued by the Panchayat Secretary of Sarampally Gram Panchayat, the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings. 9. It is very much relevant to mention that if this Court pass any order in this case, it would amounts to modifying the earlier order dated 25. 09. 2025 passed by this Court in Clrl P. No. 10219 of 2025, especially bar under Section 362 of the Cr. P. t- 10. For the foregoing reasons, this Court dot:r not hnd any ground to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 350 of 1025 on the file of the leamed Judicial Magistrate of the First Class r I Sircilla 1 1. Accordingly, this criminal petition is dismisse l. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pendi r if any, stand 5 closed. id/- B. REKHA RANI . ,AbsiljTANT REGISTRAR -( \ \ //TRUE COPY// i SECTION OFFICER \ \ To, \ , Class Sircilla 1. The Judicial Magistrate of First at Police Stali rn,Rajanna Siricilla 2. The Station Houle Officer, Gambhiraopet 3.
One CC to SRI MOHD AMJAD ALI ANSARI, Advocate SPUCI 4. Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court i r the state of Telangana at hyderabad [OUTI 5. Two CD CoPies. AR/kam ) HIGH COURT DATED:0911212025 'i I ORDER . s I I \+ GRLP. No. 16292 of 2025 l. r- t. , { * * . i'*. -'t.. 4; ) / OY'. i' o H + a DISMISSING THE CRL. P. q
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.