Telangana High Court
Kartekeya Myadam vs The State Of Telangana on 16 April, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4562 of 2025
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed seeking the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.6811 of 2024 on the file of the learned XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 336 and 290 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and Sections 183 and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint on 14.01.2024, at 4:30 PM stating that the complainant, a tech team operator, reported that a Twitter video showed a Lamborghini with license plate bearing No.TS09GD9777 driving recklessly and causing noise pollution on Road No.1 in Jubilee Hills. The complainant requested that action be taken against the driver according to the law.
3. Heard Sri E. Sudhanshu Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents - State.
2
SKS,J Crl.P.No.4562 of 2025
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence, as alleged in the final report and that the allegations do not attract the provisions of Sections 279, 336, and 290 of the IPC and Sections 183 and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He further submitted that the petitioner has no connection with the allegations, and respondent No.2 lodged the complaint based on a video seen on Twitter, without being present at the scene. He contended that the final report states that the car remains in its original manufactured condition, with no unauthorized modifications. Despite this, the respondent police has filed a final report for the aforementioned offences. The petitioner was neither driving the vehicle nor present at the scene, and is arrayed as an accused person only because he is the owner of the vehicle. There are no independent witnesses or police personnel who can corroborate the allegations, and the driver of the vehicle has not been identified.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, which laid down guidelines for quashing an FIR. The present case falls under the category of malicious prosecution, as the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive. Therefore, he 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.4562 of 2025 prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.
6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, stating that the Investigating Officer collected CCTV footage from the scene of the offence as well as from the petitioner's house. He further submitted that there is ample evidence on record to show that the petitioner drove the vehicle independently and in a reckless manner. Therefore, there are serious allegations against the petitioner that require trial. Hence, at this stage, quashing the proceedings against the petitioner does not arise and prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.
7. In light of the submissions made by the both learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the case was registered based on a Twitter video, wherein the alleged car was shown being driven in a reckless manner. However, the report submitted by the Police does not specify the exact time of the offence. The report merely states that the video was observed at 16:00 hours, but the time of the alleged offence is not mentioned. Furthermore, there is no evidence on record to substantiate that the vehicle in question was driven negligently in 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.4562 of 2025 the said area. Neither independent witnesses nor CCTV footage from the relevant location has been referred to in the charge sheet. Although the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the Investigating Officer had collected CCTV footage, including from the petitioner's house, this footage has not been referenced in the final report. The only witnesses examined by the Police are the complainant.
8. The charge sheet indicates that the presence of two mediators, L.W.2 and L.W.3, was secured to observe the scene of the offence. However, it is explicitly noted that no incriminating material was found to seize, nor was the CCTV footage of the area obtained. This omission further undermines the claims against the petitioner.
9. It is pertinent to note that there is insufficient evidence to establish that the petitioner drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Moreover, the charge sheet fails to mention the specific date and time of the offence, apart from stating that the video was observed at 16:20 hours. Whether the alleged offence occurred on the mentioned date or time remains unclear, and this ambiguity renders the charge sheet devoid of essential material particulars.
5
SKS,J Crl.P.No.4562 of 2025
10. In light of the lack of substantial evidence, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner amounts to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed.
11. In view thereof, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.6811 of 2024 on the file of the learned XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 16.04.2025 SAI