Telangana High Court
CRLP/16350/2026 of Tibirisetti Satya Siva Saradhi, Vs Thc State of Telangana, on 6 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 16350 OF 2026 Betvveen: 1. Tibirisetti Satya Srva Saradhi, S/o. Tibirisetti Rama Krrshna, aged about 43
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 16350 OF 2026
Betvveen:
1. Tibirisetti Satya Srva Saradhi, S/o. Tibirisetti Rama Krrshna, aged about 43
years, Occ. Private Employee, R/o. H. No. '16,35 Nalanda Nagar, Hyderguda, Attapur, Ranga Reddy District
2. Tibirisetti Chittamma, Wo. Tibirisetti Rama Krishna, aged about 60 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o. H. No. 16,35 Nalanda Nagar, Hyderguda, Attapur, Ranga Reddy District.
3. Tibirisetti Rama Krishna, aged about 65 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o.
H. No. 16,35 Nalanda Nagar, Hyderguda, Attapur, Ranga Reddy District.
4. Tibirisetti Sunil Kumar, aged about 40 years, Occ. Private Employee, H. No.
'16,35 Nalanda Nagar, Hyderguda, Attapur, Ranga Reddy District
...Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4
AND
1. Thc State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad.
2 Tibirisetti Lavanya, Wo Tibirisetti Satya Siva Saradhi, aged about 41 yeas, Occ. House Wife, R/o. H. No.52, 1st Floor, Jyothi Nagar, Langarhouse, Hyderabad - 500 008
..RespondenUDe-facto Complainant
Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Quash the FIR No. 269 of 2026 dated '19.09.2026 registered against the Petitioners for offences under sections 85, 351(2) BNS, 2023 and sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 on the file of the SHO, WPS Rajendra Nagar Zone (Hyderabad)
l.A. NO: 2 OF 2026
Petition under Seclion 528 of B.N S.S. praying that rn the ctrcumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courl may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in FIR No. 269 of 2026 dated 19.09.2026
registered against the Petitioners for offences under sections 85,351(2) BNS, 2023
and seclions 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohrbition Act, 1961 on the file of the SHO, WPS
Rajendra Nagar Zone (Hyderabad) including appearance of the Petitioners before the SHO, WPS Rajendra Nagar Zone (Hyderabad) pendrng disposal of the above Quash Petition.
This Pertition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the lr,4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri D. Sanjarr Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri S. Sridhar, Advocate for the Petitroners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None appeared for the Respondent No.2.
The Court made the following: ORDER
t--
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAI)
THE HONOURABLE SRTJUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.16350 of 2026
CNR No. : HBHC010683012026
Date:06.10. 2026
Between:
Tibirisetti Satya Siva Saradhi and three others .Petitioners
AND
The State ofTelangana 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
This Criminal Petition has been fi1ed by the petitionersi accused Nos.l to 4 seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.269 of 2026 of WPS Rajendranagar Zone (Hyderabad), Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 85 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 (for short, 'BNS') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, l96l(for short 'D.P. Act').
Heard Mr.D-Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel representing Mr.S.Sridhar, leamed counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for I respondent No.1.
-
3. With their consent, the criminal petition is disposecl of at the stage of admission
4. Leamed counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not committed the alleged offences and have been falsely irnplicated in the present case. At no point of time, pelitioner Nos.2 to 4 harassed respondent No.2 or demanded for additional dowry as alleged in the complaint. He further submitted that the ingredients ofthe offences under Sections 85 and 351(2) of tho BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act are nor attracted against the petitioners and are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. The Investigating Officer, without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') and without foilowing the guidelines formulated by thc Hon'ble Supreme Courl in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Biharl , IS proceeding further in the matter and the same is contrary to law
5. Per contro, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations levelled in the complaint against the petitioners r egarding harassment and demand for additional 'i:ot+y8 scc :i:
J dowry, as well as threatening respondent No.2 with dire consequences. Whether the petitioners have committed the alleged offences or not has to be revealed during the course of investigation, and the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings at this stage. He further submitted that the offences levelled against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years and that the lnvestigating Officer has already issued notice under Section 35(3) ofthe BNSS to petitioner No.1 and intends to follow the very same procedure in respect of petitioner Nos.2 to 4. However, petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are avoiding receipt of the notice and are not cooperating with the Investigating Officer.
6. By way of reply, learned 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.l and respondent No.2 are husband and wife and matrimonial disputes arose between them The record further reveals that the offences levelled against the petitioners are punishable with imprilonment of less than seven -
To, years. Even according to the learned Additional Public prosecutor, the Investigating Offrcer issued notice under Section 35(3) BNSS to petitioner No.1 and he intends to follow the very same ltrocedure in lespect of petitioner Nos.2 to 4 also.
8. In vier.r' of the above, the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are clirected to aplrear before the Investigating Officer on or before 26.10.2026 and submit replyrexplanation along with the documents, which are available with them, ro the Investigating Ofhcer. The Investigating Offlcer is entitled to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and follow the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra).
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed SD/- B. REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1 The XV Additional Chief lt4etropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad City
2. The Station House Officer, WPS Rajendra Nagar Zone (Hyderabad), H'7dera bad.
3. Ttvo CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad IOUT]
4. One CC to Sri. S. Srrdhar, Advocate [OPUC] 5 Two CD Copies t- l)t- L/I GNK
HIGH COURT DATED: 0611012026
ORDER
CRLP.No.16350 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION 'oF q lr tE rt\s L -i \h ltt$t,rqi \ib \ \> t