CRLP/16686/2026 of Madhu Paraneshwar Rao Vs The State of Telangana on 9 October 2026

ORDER

This Criminal Petition has becn filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.27 1 of 2026 of Meerpet police Station, Ranga Reddy District, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.1, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3 I6(2) and 324(5) read with 3(5) of rhe Bharariya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 (for short 'BNSJ.

2. Heard Mr. Mahesh Kosgi, learned counsel representing Mr. R.Mangulal, Icarned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jirhender Rao Veeramalla, and learned Additional public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1. With their consent, this criminal petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed the alleged offences and has been lalsely implicated in the present crime. The allegations levelled in the complaint are purely civil in nature, in respect of aglcemcn I of sale cum-general po\(,er of atlorney with posscssion datcd 13.02.2O2L Rcspondent No.2 ought to have approached a competent civrl Court, on the other hand, lodged the prescnt complarnt, by giving it a criminal colour. Even according ro Lhe allegations levelled in the r:omplaint, the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 316(2) an<t 324(5) read with 3(5) are not attracted against the petitioner. Ilence. continuation of the procecdings against the pctilioncr is a clear abuse ol lhe process ol leLr,,"'. He further sul;rnittcd that the offences alleged against the petitioner are punrshable r.l ith imprisonmcnt o[ less than seven years. The Investigating Officer, without follow'ing the mandatory procedure prcscribed under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'the BNSS') and without [ollo.,r'ing the guidelines formulated b-,- the Hor-r'ble Supreme Cotr:'t rn Arnesh Kumar ys. State of Biharl , is proceeding furthcr in r hc matter and the same is contrarv to la!"'.

1. I'er contra, le arned Additional Public Prosecutor sutrmitted that therc are specific allegations levelled against the petitloner rn thc complaint that under the guise of mortgage documcnts, the petitioner has frauduientl),got executed GpA in their f:rvour :rnd sold to one Jangam Sudheer Recldy, who (101 t1 3 56 1- '--, obtained Rs.80,00,000/- by mortgaging the property, which resulted the complainant to lose the possession of her house. The said allegations pima facie attracts cognizable offences. Whether the allegations made against the petitioner are true or not, the same has to be revealed during the course of investigation, especially the investigation is under progress. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashmen t of the proceedings against him at threshold. Srnce thc ollcnccs levclled against the petitioner are punishable with imprison ment of less than seven years, when the Investigating Officer is trying to follow the due procedure as contemplated under the provisions of Section 35(3) of the BNSS, the petitioner is evading the receipt of notice and not cooperating with the investigation from the date of registrarion of crime.

5. Learncd counsel for [he pctitioner b-v u,av of rcply submitted that the petitioner will cooperate with the rnvestrgatron

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the allegations levelled in the complaint about the dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner. Whether thc said allcgattons are truc or nol, thc samc u,ill bc revealed during the course of investigation. Theroflences levelled against thc petitioncr are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven vears. Even according to the learned Adciit ional Pubhc Prosecutor, the Investigating Olficer recorded the :itatcmcnts of I,W.1 and he wanl.s to follow the due proccdure .IS contempl.lted under the provisions o1'Section 35(3) o[ tht BNSS.

7. In vieri' of the same, the petitioner rs directed to appear before the Investrgating Officer on or before 17.1O 2026 and on such appearance, the Investigating Office'r ls directed to lollor'"' the procedure contcmplated under the provisions of the BNSS, and alsci the guidehnes formulated by the Hon'ble.A.pex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra) and thc petitioncr shall cooperate u'ith thc rr,r'estiga Lion. It rs nce d Iess to mention that I he petitioncr is entirlcd to sttbmit replv to the notice under Section 35(3) of the RNSS bv raising all the pleas which are available to him and he rs also entitled to submit the documents, il an1', rvhich are in his cusrr)d\'. to the Inve sligatrng Officer.

8. Accordinqly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of closr'd N,lrsccllancor-rs aPplications, pel'rdinq il any shall stand -<Irl-*. To, IITRUE COPYII SD/- B. REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

L . -rL The Vl AJC.t-r:,,rn \/r ^ ,i,-, ]n" .,,,,"i nl;::;fl'Jt: court at LB Nasar, R R District one cc ,;;,,;;;ffi; ffi::,J.f;:j,,,", r\4a,kajsiri Disrrict

4- Two ccs to pubric prosecutor, High court for the state of rerangana, at Hyderabad IOUT]

5. Two CD Copies VH/GNKW t \

HIGH COURT DATED: 0911012026

ORDER

CRLP.No.16686 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION )o 1$ ofi 202t ^t:( t s-' ),-' ,r/ STAt-(- 19 r' P, ) el q <\ ! i @+d 10 l"b ,|