Telangana High Court
CRLP/16712/2026 of MOHAMMED@MIRZA MOHAMMED ALI BAIG Vs The State of Telangana on 9 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 16712 OF 2026 Between: 1. [\/ohammed @ Mtza Mohammed Ali Baig, S/o. [Mirza Maseeh Ali Baig, Aged about 24
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 16712 OF 2026
Between:
1. [\/ohammed @ Mtza Mohammed Ali Baig, S/o. [Mirza Maseeh Ali Baig, Aged about 24 years, Occ- Business, R/o. H. No.21-3-91 , 921D, (Old Portion of H No.21-3-9'1 and 21-3-92), Chelapura, Hyderabad, Telangana.
2. IVlubeen @ It/ohd. Firdous S/o. Abdul Sattar, Aged about 42 years, Occ- Business, R/o.H.No.20-1-389, Saxena Building, Hussarni Alam, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad, TG - 500064.
3. Tinku @ S. Ranjeet Singh S/o. Santok Singh, Aged about 42 years, Occ- Business, R/o.H.No.2/43, NGR Colony, Uppal, Rangareddy District TG -
500039.
4. Omer @ It/ohd. Omair,, S/o. Mohd. Akbar, Aged about 36 years, Occ- Business, R/o. H. No.21-5-41514117 , Petla Bud, DCP Head Quarters, Charminar, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad, TG - 500064.
...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No. 1,2,4 & 5
AND
1. The State of Telangana, P.S.Hussaini Alam, Hyderabad, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad
2. Archana Wo. M.Ravi Kumar, Aged about 40 years, Occ- Private Employee, R/o.H No.21-3-9119210, Nammak Kharkana, Chelapura X Road, Hyderabad.
...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT
Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the it/lemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in FlR.No.303 of 2026, dated 03.10.2026 of PS Hussaini Alam, Hyderabad against the petitioners herein / Accused No 1, 2, 4 and 5.
l.A. NO: 2 OF 2026
Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds of crimrnal Petition, the High court may be pleased to stay of a I further proceedings in FlR.No 303 of 2026, dated 03 j02026 of pS
Hussaini r\lam, Hyderabad against the petitioners herein / Accused No.1, 2, 4 & 5
pending d sposal of the criminal petrtion.
This Petitron coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri [\,ilohammad Habeebuddin representing Sri D. chandra shekar, Advocate for the petitioners, Public Prc,secutor on behalf of the Respondent No 1 and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2.
The Court made the following: ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERA BAI)
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINA LPETITION No.16712 ot2026
CNR No. : HBHCO 10700982026
Date: 09.10.2026
Mohammed @Mirza Mohammed Ali Baig and three others Petitioners ANI)
The State of1-elangana 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
l'his Criminal petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos. l, 2, 4 and 5 seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.303 of 2026 of Hussaini Alam, police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable lrnder Seclions 33 l( I ), 324(5), 35 I(2) and I I 5(2) r/r.r, 3(5) ot. thc Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ,2023 (for short, ,BNS,).
2. Heard Sri Mohammad Habeebuddin, learned counsel representing Mr.D.Chandra Shekar, Iearned counsel fbr the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.l. Between:
a J Withtheirconsent,thecriminalpetitionisdisposedofatthe stage of admission.
4. Learned petir.ioners have counsel for the petitioners submits that the not committed the alleged offences and have been falsely impticated in the present case The allegations levelled against the petitioners are purely civil in nature' Petitioner No' 1 had approached the VIII Junior Civil Judge' City Ciril Court' Hyderabad, and filed O'S No 1924 ol 2026 against the husband of res:ondent No.2 and another person, seeking a peryetual injunction restraining therr.r fiom interfering with the suit schedule propefty' ThesaidCourt,inI.A.No'854of2026,grantedanadinterim injunction. Hence, the question of the petitioners trespassing upon the properly, as alleged in the complaint' does not arise He fufther submits that the offences levelled against the petitioners are punishable *rlith imprisonment of less than seven 5 ears The lnvestigating Ottlcer, without fbllowing the rr.randatory procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagaril< Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') and r'r'ithout following the guidelines tbrmulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh
Kumar Vs. State of Bihart, is proceeding further in the matter and the same is contrary to law.
5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioners in the complaint about trespassing in the subject property and abusing respondent No.2. Whether the petitioners have committed the ot-fence or not have to be revealed durins the course of investigation and the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings at this stage. He further submitted that the Investigating Officer wants to lollow the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and also the guidelines formulated by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra) on the ground that the oftences levelled against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment less than years. However, the petitioners are avoiding to receive the notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS and not cooperating with the Investigating Officer.
6. By way of reply, leamed counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners will cooperate with the Investigating Officer. '(2orq)8 scc :r:
7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that disputes between the petitioner No' I and husband of respondent No.2 are regarding residential house' Civil suit is also pending between them belore the competent Civil Cou(.-I.herecordfurtherrevealsthattheof.tenceslevelledagainst the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. Even according to the leamed Additional Public Prosecutor' the Investigating Officer will follow the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and also the guidelines {brmulated b1 the Apex Cou( in Arnesh Kumtr (supra)'
8. ln vier,,' of the above, the petitioners are directed to appear belbre the Investigating Officer on or befbre 20 10 2026 and submit reply/explanation along with the documents' which are available with them, to the Investigating Officer' The Investigating Olficer is entitled to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3to1'the BNSS and lollow the guidelines issued by the Apex Court tn Arnesh Kumsr (suPra)'
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed ot-'
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/-C. DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER
1. The Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad
2. The Station House Officer, Hussaini Alam police Station, Hyderabad
3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]
4. One CC to Sri D. Chandra Shekar, Advocate [OPUC]
5. Two CD Copies VH/GNK I I G To,
HIGH COURT DATED: 0911012026
ORDER
CRLP.No.16712 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION oo 14 OcI2U26 tk1r S rAf€ c( * .f, * \i1