Telangana High Court
CRLP/16814/2026 of Shaik Khaja Moinuddin (A-1), Vs The State of Telangana, on 12 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD I\iIONDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 16814 OF 2026 Between: 1. Shaik Khaja Moinuddin ( A -1), S/o Shaik Chand Pasha, Aged about 36 years,
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
I\iIONDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 16814 OF 2026
Between:
1. Shaik Khaja Moinuddin (A-1), S/o Shaik Chand Pasha, Aged about 36 years, Occ- Welder, R/o H.No. 8-3-228161811186, Sriram Nagar, Ganga Nagar, Borabanda, Hyderabad, Telangana.
2. Shaik lt/lusthafa (A-2), S/o Shaik Chand Pasha, Aged about 40 years, Occ- Private Employee, R/o H. No.8-3-2281678110091165, Sriram Nagar, Borabanda, Hyderabad.
3. Shaik lti]uzumaill (A-3), S/o Shaik Chand Pasha, Aged about 34 years, Occ- Prrvate Employee, Rio H. No.8-3-228167811592, Bhamha Shankar Nagar, Yousufguda, SPR Hills, Khairatabad, Sriram Nagar, Borabanda, Hyderabad.
4. Smt. Lathifa Begum (A- ),, Wo Mohammed Khaleed, Aged about 38 years, Occ Housewife, R/o H.No- 8-3-228167811468lC, Saiaram Nagar, Yousufg uda Hyderabad.
(Petitioners No. 2 to 4 are the Married brothers and married sister of Petitioner No. 1)
... Petitioners/Acc used Nos- 1 to 4
AND
1. The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad through Station House Officer, Dundrgal Police Station, Cyberabad.
2. Smt. lVehraj Begum, Wo Shaik Khaja lVloinuddin, Aged about 28 years, Occ- Housewife, Rio H.No. 6-11171A, Sai Pooja Colony, Gandimaisamma, Dundrgal It/andal, N/edch a l- Ma lkajgiri District, Telangana
...Respondents/Compla inant
r+rrE-tEltrllt
Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the It/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitron, the High Courl may be pleased to quash proceedrngs in Crime No. 950 of 2026, dated 24.09.2026 of Dundigat P S, Cyderabad District for the offence punishable under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 . against the petirioners
I.A. NO: 2 OF 2026
Petitron under Section 528 of BNSS/482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds oi Criminal Petitron, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedrngs includrng arrest of the petitioners in Crime No 950 of 2026, dated 24 09 2026 of Dundigal P S, Cyderabad District for the offence punishable under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the l\,4emorandum of Grounds of Sriminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Vijay Kumar Panugantr, .Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public rrosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of None appeared for the lespondent No. 2.
'Ihe Court made the following: ORDER
-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAI)
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINALPETITION No.16814 of 2026
CNR No.HBHC0l 0705292026
Date:72.10.2026
Between
Shaik Khaja Moinuddin and 3 others
...Petitioners
AND
The State ofTelangana and another
...Respondents
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
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 perition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.950 of 2026, on the file of the Dundigai police Station, Cyberabad District, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos. I to 4, for the offence punishable under Section g5 of the Bharativa Nyaya Sanhitha,2023 (for shorr ,BNS,).
2. Heard Mr.Vrjay Kumar panuganti, leamed counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao veeramaila, reamed Additionar public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1.
3. With the consent of both the leamed counsel, the criminal petition is disposed of at,the admission stage. ,l
4. Leamed counsel lor the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not cornmitted the alleged offences and have been falsely implcated in the present cnme by making omnibus allegations. Especrally, there are no allegations, much less specific allegations, against petirioner t.,\os.2 to 4 to attract the offence under Section 85 of the IINS. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are brothers, and petitioner No,4 is the sister of accused No.I . At no point of trme did petitioner Nos.2 to 4 harass the respondent or'demand additional dowry. as alleged in the complaint. llence, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitloners is a clear abuse of the process of law 4.1. He firrther submitted that the offences levelled against the petrtioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. The Investigating Officer had already served a notice under Section 35(3 ) of the BNSS on petitioner No. I /accused No. I . Pursuant to the same. he appcared before the lnvestigating Officer ort 01.10.2026. In spite of the san.le, thc police are insisting that petitioner No.i appear before the lnvestigating Ofticer regularly. He further submitted that the lnvestigatrng Officer, witirout lbllowing the mandatory procedure presc,'ibed under Section 4l A oithe Cr.p.C.iSection 3-<(3) of the BNSS alrci tl,c guiciiLiles issued b1.the Apc.x Courl in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihay', is proceeding with the investigation in respect of petitioner Nos. 2 to 4, which is contrary to law.
5. Per contra, the leamed Additional pubiic prosecutor submitted that specific allegations have been leveiled against the petitioners in the complaint about the harassment caused by the petitioners and their demand for additional dowry. whether the allegations revelled against the petitioners are true or not has to be revealed during the course of the investigation, and the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings at this stage. However, the offences levelled against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, and the Investigating officer tried to serve notices under Section 35(3) of the BNSS on petitioner Nos.2 to 4, but they are avoiding receiving the notices and are not cooperating with the investigation. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings.
6. By way of reply, leamed counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners will cooperate with the Investigating Officer. 7 . Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 are husband and wife, and their marriage was performed 10 years ago. While the marriage was r(2014) 8 SCC 273
I subsistrng, matrimonial disputes arose between them. Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are the brothers and sister of accused No.l. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven ycars Even according to the leamed counsel, the Investigating Officer has already issued a notrce under Section 35(3) of the BNSS to petitroner \o.l accused No.1. Hence, this Court is of the considered v le\\ that petitioncr No.l laccused No.1 is entitled to put forth his grievance pursuant to the said notice by raising all the pleas, including the pleas raised in the present Crimrnal Petition
8. ln respect of the petitioner Nos.2 to 4iaccused Nos.2 to 4 are concemed, the petitioner Nos.2 to 4/accused Nos.2 to 4 are directed to appeal bclore the Investigating Officer on or before 21 .10.2026, and on such appealance, the investigating Officer is directed to issue notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS and fo1low the guidelines issued by the Aper Court in Arncsh Kumar supra. It is needless to mention that the petitioner \:os.2 to 4taccused Nos.2 to 4 are entitled to put forth their grier ance upon receipt of the notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and are also entitled to subrnit the documents. if any. which are in their possesslon
9. Subject to the above directions, the Criminal petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous applications, pending ifany, shall stand closed i/TRUE COPY// Sd/- M. NAGAMANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SEC FFICER To, DL
1. The v|r Additionar Judrciar IVagistrate of First crass at Medchar.
2. The Station House Offrcr 3 rwo ccs,",n; ;;;;;';,.3":1fl '"lif jl1,i?;ivderabad District Hyderabad (OUT) rrrgrr uoun for the State of Telangana, at
4. One CC to Sri Vray Kumar panuganti, Advocate tOpUCl
5. Two CD Copies
HIGH COURT DATED: 1211012026
ORDER
CRLP.No.16814 ot 2026 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION E SIATE (f 17 ocl m0 .J )_ \ i ^'.. -a -l-'-'---' L -k ,.*b \ro\v ..Y\\ \'(a\ u...,\ LV