CRLP/16049/2026 of Mynam Nanda Kishore Vs The State of Telangana on 13 October 2026

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 528 of the tlharati."-a Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.2023 (lbr short'thc tINSS') by thc petitioncrs/ac c uscd Nos.5 and 6 sceking to quash the procce-dings in F.l.R. No. 103 ol 2026 of Economic Offences Wing Police Station. Cyberabad, registered tbr thc oft-ences ptrnishablc under Scctions 318(4) and 316(2) r/w 3(5) olthe Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 (tbr short'the BNS').

2. tleald Mr.K.ll.Ramanrra Dora. Icrrned cortnscl lbr thc pctitioners. Mr.Mahmood Khan, lcarned cotrnsel lbl rcspondc-nt No.2. through viclco conf'erence, and Mr.Jithendar Rao Veerarnalla, leamed Additional Public

Prosecutor for respondent No.l. With their consent, this criminal petition is disposed ol-at the stagc ol'adrnission 3.1 Learned counsel lbr the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have noL cor-nmitted any oll'cnce and thev have been talsely implicated in the prcsent crirne ot-r thc eround that thev entcrcd into an agrcerncnt cl1' sale r.r,ith accused No. I in respect ol the plot bearing Nos. 40 and 4l in Sy.No.I l/3 I part at Khanamet. Serilingampallv Mandal and paid substantial amoun[. -[ he cntire allegations levelled in the r:ornplaint are against accused No. I only,. Howei, er, the petitioners have been impli:ated as accused Nos.5 and 6 only on the ground that they assured thc ow ners of thc sul'rjcct propcrh, that thc1, have given the subject propert), lbr developrncnt and thore is no conspiracy with accused No.l and lhere is no dishonest intention or inducement on the pam of the petitioners, especially the petitioncrs r,",cre also suflered in the hands of accused No. L

3.2. He fiuther submitted that petitioner No.2 lodged a cornplaint against accuscd No.l and responclcnt No.2 and others. Based upon the said complaint, Clime No.2l86 ol'2025 was regisrcred by the S.H.O., Madhapur Police Station on 1 r.1 r.2025. when the said crime is under investigation, respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint on

18.09.2026 by making omnibus allegations as a counter blast to the said case Hence, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse ofthe process law.

1.3. He further submitted that the ofTences levelled against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years and the lnvestigating Olficer without fbllowing the mandatory procedure as prescribed under Section 35(3) o1'1he BNSS and the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Biharr, is proceeding with the investigation and the same is contrary to law

4. Learned counsel Ibr respondent No.2 submitted that there are specilrc allcgations lcvclled in the complaint that the petitioners and other accuscd persons with a dishonest intcntion fiorn the date of inception received huge amounts from respondent No.2. The allegations levelled in thc complaint attracts the ingredients ol thc ol-fences under Scctions 3 I 8(4) and 316(2) rlw 3(5 ) ol the BN S and the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings ar the threshold, especially the investigation is under progress.

5. l-earned Additional Public Prosccutor rciterated the submissions made by the learned counsel lor rcspondent No.2. However, the olTences r(l0tt)8s(c27-l c levelled against rhe petitioners are punishable rvith irnprisonment ol less than seven years and the Investigating Officer will follow the due procerlure as conterrplated undcr the provisions of Section 35(3 ) ol the BNSS and thc peritioncrs shall cooperatc with the inr estigation

6. J'he learned counsel lor the petitioners by way of relrly submitted that thc pctitioncrs rrill cooperate uith the inrcstigation.

7. llaving considered the rival subrrissions rnade by the respective parties and afier perusal of the material available on record, it revcals that there arc specilrc allegations lcvelled in the complaint that rhe petitioners along w'ith othcr accused received the amounts liom respondent No.2. whether the allegations levelled against the petitioners in the cornplaint are true or not. the sanrc w.ill bc revealed during the course of in'.'estigation. [;ven according ro thc learned Addrtional public Prosecutor. the investigation is under progress. The offences levelled agai:st the petitioners are punishable with irnprisonrnent of less than sevcn ),ears. lr'en according to thc learned Additional public prosecutor, the lnvestisating Olficer \ /ants to lbllow, the due procedure as conlernplated under Sccrion 35(3) olthc UNSS.

8. Taking into consideration the pecuriar facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the submissions made by the leamed Additional Public Prosecutor, the petitioners/acc used Nos.5 and 6 are directed to appear before the Investigating officer on or before 27.10.2026 and on such appearance, the Investigating officer is directed to scrupulously lollow the due procedure as conternplatcd undcr. rhc provisions or-thc BNSS and the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Courr in Arnesh Kumar (supra). The petilioners shall cooperate with the investigation. It is needless 1o mention that thc pctirioners arc entitled to put lonh thcir grievance before the Investigating offlccr by raising all the pleas which are available to them and they are also entitled to submit the documents, which are in their possession. With the above directions, the Crirninal petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous applications, pending il any, shall stand closed. SD/- MOHD. OSMAN ALI BAIG, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SE ON OFFICER

1. The Principal Junior Civil Judge cum Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

2. The Station House Officer, EOW Cyb (Cyberabad), Cyberabad District'

3. TwoCCstoPublicProsecutor,HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana'at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to Sri. K B Ramanna Dora' Advocate [OPUC]

5. Two CD Copies

To pr

HIGH COURT DATED: 1311012026

ORDER

CRLP.No.16049 ot 2026 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION { S1 AT.A J' 1/) -l u OCT 2ffi n * q rrO X\.'