CRLP/16773/2026 of Sadavath Ramakanth @ Ramakant Narahari Sadwarte 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: 't6773 OF 2026

Between:

AND

Sadavath Ramakanth @ Ramakant Narahari Sadwarte, S/o Narahari, Aged about 40yrs, Occ. Police Constable, Hingoli, R/o Building No l5, Room No.1 1 3, New Police Colony, Hingoli, Maharashtra State

...Petitioner/Accused No.4

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

Bagathe Swapna, Wo lvlunlaji, Aged about 23 yrs, Occ Housewife, R/o Maratga Village, Hadgoan Tq, Nanded District, Maharashtra State

...RespondenUDe-facto 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 against the Petitioner/Accused No.4 in Crime No. 103/2026

of Sarangapur Police Station, Nirmal District.

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2026

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 stay of all further proceedings including the arrest of the petitioner/Accused No.4 in Crime No. 10312026 of Sarangapur Police Station, Nirmal District.

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of It4r' D.

Satyanarayana, Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None Appeared for the Respondent No.2.

The Court made the following: OROER

IN'I'HE IIIGH COURT I.'OR'I'H E S'TA-I'E, OF'TELANGANA

AT IIYDERABAD

I'HE HONOT]RAI}LE SRI JI]STICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

(lRI\II\.\l- Pt.'tll'lo\ \o.16773 of 2026

CNlt No. I I BtlC0 I 0706552026

Date:09.10.2026

Sadar lth Ranrakanth !i Ramakant \arahari Sadwarte

.., Petitioner/Accused No.4

AND

-[-he State of I'elaneana and anolhcr

..Respondcnts

ORDF-R:

this ('rinrinal Pctition has bccn llled r-rndcl Scction 518 ol' the Bharatila \agarik Sulaksha Sanhita. l0ll (lbr shorr'the BNSS') by the \o.10-l o1- l0l6 ol' SaransapLrr Police Station. Nirrnal [)istrict, registered tbr thc olfences punishable under Section 8-5 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitl pct it ionr r, accLrscd \o.-1 st-eking Prohibition r\ct. 196 I

quash the proceedings in Crirne

201l

t0

(tirr short 'Lhc tlNS') and Section .1 o1' the Dowrr,,

2.

Ilcard \{r. I).Sarranararana. lc.arned counsel for the petitioner.

and i\{r'.rirhendar Rao \.ccrarraua. rcarned Additional public prosecutor Belw c-cn:

'2

lor respondent No.l. With thcir consent' the criminal petition disposed of at the stage of admission'

IS

3.

L.earned counsel Ibr the pctitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any oft'ence and he has been falsely implicated in this crime by making omnibus allegations only on the ground that the pctitioner is brother- in- lar'r ot' accr-rsed No' l ' especially at no point ol tilne, the petitioner harassed rcspondent No 2 nor instigated accused No l to harass respondent No.2 or made any statement that he is going to pcrlorm second marriage to accused No l' The said allegations were made only lor the purposc of harassing the petitioner on the ground that he is a Police constable and discharging his duties at Hingoli'

Maharashtra State. At no point ol time' respondent No 2 or accused No l lived along with thc petitioncr nor the petitioner contacted them Hence'

continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse of the process of law.

4.

He f urther submitted that the off'ences levelled against the petitioner are punishabte with imprisonment of less than seven years and the Investigating Officer without fbllowing the mandatory procedure as prescribed under Section 35(3) ol'the UNSS and the guidelines issued by rl.

with the inr estigation arrd thc sarlc is e ontrnr\ to lavi

the ,\pe\ CoLrlt in .,\rncsh Kumar Vs. Statc of Biharr, IS procced ing thc conrplaint that thc pctitioncr Whether the oll record, it reveals thal P!t cotltra. learned .\dditional Public Prosecutor submitted rhat therc are spccilrc "tllt-gatior-r: lercllcd U1

instigated accuscd l\o. I to rorturc rcspondent No.l and starcd that he

* ould pertbnr second marriage to accused No.1. The said allcgation allesations ler clled in rhe complainr are truc ur not, ',he sarre rvill be attract-s the inlrreclienrs ol' Sc.ction 85 of rht BNS

and upon perrrsal ot' thc. rna[erial ar ailable under progless. At this stace. the pctitioner is not entitled to seek for seek ing q uash in g o l' the procecd ings

6. Hc turther subrnitted that the ol-fences levelled against the IS

petitionel are punishablc w'ith imprisonrre nt o1- lcss than seven vears and li'hen thc Inr estiearin-e Oftlccr is Irr ins ro serve the notice unde.r Section revealecl during thc course ot'invcstigation. especially the investigation 3i(3 ) ot the U\SS to thc pcritioner. he is avoiding rece iving the notice and not e oopelrtir.rg w rth thc inr,esligation