Telangana High Court
CRLP/16838/2026 of Prabhakar Rao Mande Vs State of Telangana on 12 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD IUONDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 16838 OF 2026 Betvveen: 1. State of Telangana, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court Of
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
IUONDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 16838 OF 2026
Betvveen:
1. State of Telangana, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Judicature
2. Smt. Jyothsna Devi lVlade, Wo. [Vande Pradeep Kumar Aged about 40 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H.No.1 -170122, Bikshapathy Enclave, Chandanagar, Serilingampally IVlandal, Ranga Reddy District
...RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT
Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Quash the proceedings in Crime No.28712026 U/Sec. 85, 79, 115(2),351(2),352
BNS on the file of WPS-IT Corridor Cyberabad against the petitioners/Accused No.2
to5
1. Prabhakar Rao lt/lande, S/o. late Prasad Rao Aged about 74 years, Occ.
Retd Employee, N.No.1-170122, Bikshapathy Enclave, Chandanagar, Serilingampally [Vlandal, Ranga Reddy District
2. \Aary Prathima lvlande, Wo. G.Prasanna Kumar Aged aboul 42 years, Occ.
Pvt. Employee, R/o. Kukatpally, N/edchal-lVlalkajg iri District
3. Praveen Kumar lt/ade, S/o. Prabhakar Rao lvlande Aged about 45 years, Occ.
Pvt Employee, R/o H.No.1-170122, Bikshapathy Enclave, Chandanagar, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District
4. Chandana Mande, Wo. Praveen Kumar l\4ade Aged about 33 years, Occ.
Business, R/o. H.No.1-170122, Bikshapathy Enclave, Chandanagar, Serilingampally lVlandal, Ranga Reddy District
...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No. 2 to 5
AND
l.A. NO: 2 OF 2026
Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the l\Iemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including arrest of the petitioner in Crime No.28712026
U/Sec. 85, 79, 115(2\,351(2),352 BNS on the file of WPS WPS-IT Corridor Cyberabad pending disposal of the main petition for quashing the same.
This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri L Sridhar, Advocate for the Petitioners, Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1.
The Court made the following: ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE IIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.16838 of 2026
CNR.No. H8HC010700162026
Date:, 72.10.2026
Between:
Prabhakar Rao Mande and three others
...Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 5
AND
State of Telangana and another.
...Respondents
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (for short 'the BNSS') by the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5 seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.287 of 2026 of WPS-IT Corridor (Cyberabad), Cyberabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 79, 115(2), 351(2), and 352 ofthe Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'the BNS',).
2. Heard Mr. l. Sridhar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. V. Jithender Rao, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1
)
3. Leamed counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not cornmitted the alleged offences and have been falsely implicated by respondent No.2 on the ground that petitioner No.1 is the father, petitioner Nos.2 is the sister, petitioner No.3 is the brother and petitioner No.4 is the sister-in-law of accused No.l. At no point to time, respondent No.2 and accused No.l lived along with petitioners after their mariage. Resp_ondent No.2 voluntarily left the matrimonial house of accused No.1 and lodged the present complaint by making omnibus allegations. Hence. the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse of the process of law. He further submitted that the lnvestigating Officer had already issued notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS to petitioner Nos.2 to 4 on 01.08.2026 and to petitioner No.1 on 06.08.2026 and pursuant to the same, the petitioners have appeared before the Investigating Officer. In spite o| the same. the Investigating Officer is summoning the petitioners ttr the police station and threatening them to settle the issue with responde nt No.2.
4. Per contra.leamed Additional public prosecutor submitted that there are spe-cific allegations levelled in the complaint against the J petitioners. Subsequent to issuance of notice to the petitioners, they are entitled to put forth their grievances and also entitled to submit documents, if any, in their possession. ln spite of the same, the petitioners have approached this Court and filed the present criminal petition seeking to quash the proceedings, which is not permissible under law. The investigation is under progress and the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of LW. I to LW.6 and he is not summoning the petitioners to the police station and the petitioners shall cooperate with the investigation.
5. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that petitioner No.1 is the father, petitioner Nos.2 is the sister, petitioner No.3 is the brother and petitioner No.4 is the sister-inlaw of accused No. 1 . Respondent No.2 is the wife of accused No.l and matrimonial issues arose between them when their marriage is subsisting. Whether the allegations levelled in the complaint are true or not, the same will be revealed during the course of investigation. Even according to the leamed counsel for the parties, the Investigating Officer had issued notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS to the l petitioner Nos.2 to 4 on 01.08.2026 and to petitioner No.l on 06.08.2026
6. Hence. this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners are entitled to submit reply to the notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, by raising all the pleas which are available to them, and they are also entitled to submit the documents, if any, which are in their custody, to the lnvestigating Officer. The Investigating Officer is further directed to scrupulously follow the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the BNSS, and also the guidelines formulated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Biharl.
1. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous applications, pending ifany, shall stand closed. tb^i I scc-e+3 //TRUE COPY// SD/-L VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTI FFICER To, 1 . The 1't Additional Junior civil Judge-cum-lX Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1't Class, R.R. District at Kukatpal[
2. The station House officer, women porice station-rr corridor, cyberabad
3. Two CCs to public prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] 4 One CC to Sri l. Sridhar, Advocate tOpUCl
5. Two CD Copies VH/,qBK 9+ /r L-v
a'
HIGH COURT DATED: 1211012026
ORDER
CRLP.No.16838 ot 2026 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION 17 ocI 2020 ?. T S r C € ( q
(-) t DESi'ATC 9 * ,t^ G) Ftplrt k.t