CRLP/16616/2026 of Y. KATAIAH, Vs State of Telangana on 8 October 2026

ORDER

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.2, 4, 5 and 6 seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.675 of 2026 of Shamirpet Police Station, Malkajgiri District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 329 (3) and 324(5) read wirh Section 3(5) ofthe lndian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC')

2. Heard Mr. V.Aravind, leamed counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional public prosecutor ). for r-cspondent No.l. With their consent, the criminal petition is l.earned counsel lbr the petrtioners submits that the petitioners have rrot commlttcd the alleged offences and have been falsely implicated in the prescnt case. Even accot'ding to the allegations drsposed ol'at Lhe stase o1'adrnission. Ievellerl in thc compiaint. the dispute S ltt'aL .rt:r ):ir,iritl! purely' civil in nature, particularlv as the petitioners are claiming rights c','er the subject propc \. rrn ihe basls ol tirc Deveiopment -A'greeme nt-cum-General Civil ( or,rrt. liencc. the continr.ratiotr of the proceed;ngs against the petitioners u,oLrld amount to an abuse of the process of law Poivc'. of Artolni:1', ilaLe(L i j.0-1.2023. Respondent No-2 has lodged the pr-seirl c.1-,r1'l-ri:-ri ir1' ei','ing a criminai coloLlr to the civil disputes pcndr r.'l i)c;u icir the parlics. instead of approaching the competent 1S 3 1 lle iuri rer. subntit-s thal thc oflences alleged agalnst the pctiti.,ners nie Dunishabie rvith irr-rprisonment ol less than seven years and l riLt the Ilr.'isligaling Otficcr, r,r'ithout 1bllowing the mandatory pr-occ.lux r''::cr-ii,cd Lrrtder Section 35(i) ol the Bharatr,va Nagarik r0:i (iirr shLrrr. 'tsN,SS') and the guidelines laid dr)\1n ir]. .lr; 1,i,,,'[,.]e lirrpr-cme L_ourt in Arnesh Kut.ryat, v. State of lI--

Bihart is proceeding further with the investigation, which is contrary to law.

4. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioners in the complaint. lt is alleged that the petitioners, without having any right over the subject property, trespassed into the same and caused damage thereto. Whether the allegations levelled in the complaint are true or not, the same has to be revealed during the course of investigation especially when the investigation is at the threshold. The Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of L.W.l and the investigation is in progress At this stage, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings against them. However, as the offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, the Investigating Officer intends to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumur (supra). However, the petitioners are avoiding service of notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and are not cooperating with the investigation. ' lzor+; s scc zz:

-I +

B1' ri lr ot'reply'. Icamed counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioncrs u ill cooperate \\,rth the investigation and submit their replr 'erpianation. alons u ith the relevant documcnts, betbre the Inve:tisatinI: Ot llcer

6. Har ins considered the rir al submissions made by the learned coun:el tbl the pctitioners and the learned Aclditional Public Prosccutor. and upon perusal o1'the material available on record, it ler ca-rcd that the dispute betr,,, een the parties arises out of the AgLe"-rncnt-clrm-General Porver o1' Attorney, \5.04.202i. The speciiic aile-gations against the pctitioners are that, u'ithout having any right or.cr the sub.ject property, they trespassed into the same, damased the \\,ater tank. rernoved the name boards and carried out Ievelling u'or.k usrng a.lCB. \Vhether the allegations levelled in the compiaint are truc or not, tht: sarne will be revealed during the course of the investisation. Thc oft'ences alleged against the petitioners are punishable ri iilt imprisonment of less than ser en years. Even accorcling L() the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the lnr,estrgating Ollicer rvill firllot. thc procedure contemplated under Sectron i5tt) ,rf thc B\SS and rhe guidelines laid down by the Ilor'bic Supr-enrc CoLrrt irr .lrnesh Kunar(supra).

---r To, o

7. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners are directed to appear before the lnvestigating Officer on or before l1 .10.2026. The Investigating Olficer is directed to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra). It is needless to mention that, upon receipt of notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, the petitioners are at liberty to submit their explanation, raise any grievance, if any and produce the relevant documents available with them before the Investigating Officer. The petitioners shall also cooperate with the investigation

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed SD/. P.C.SULEKHA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The Vll Additional Judicial First-Class [/agrstrate, Malkajgiri District'

2. The Station House Officer, Shamirpet Police Station, lt/alakigiri District'

3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad (OUT)

4. One CC to Sri Ventrapragada Aravind' Advocate [OPUC]

5. Two CD Copies DL/BA \ct-

HIGH COURT DATED: 08t10t2026 5rAfE Or \i! t /< )oJ \t 0t1tut ]: ]t ?,q

ORDER

CRLP.No.16616 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION +al <,2 of"tr Vr- -rfi'dlu