WP/33803/2026 of Manne Krishank Vs The State of Telangana on 6 October 2026

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad

2. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crimes DD), Hyderabad City at Hyderabad

3. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Cyber Crimes, Hyderabad

4. The Station House Officer, P.S Cyber Crimes, Hyderabad

5. Sri Mettu Sai Kumar, S/o Not known to the Petitioner Aged Not known Occu Chairman, TPCC Fisherman Congress Committee, O/o Gandhi Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the Respondents 2 to 4 in threatening to arrest and interfere with the life and liberty of the Petitioner in connection with FIR No.668 of 2026 dated 05-'10- 2026 of P.S. Cyber Crimes, Hyderabad registered for the offences Under Sections 353(2) and 352 BNS without following the procedure contemplated Under Section 35 (3) of the BNSS, 2023 and without following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble supreme court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, as the same ir; illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 not to take coercive steps against the petilioner in FIR No.668 ot 2026 dated 05-',10-2026 of P.s. cyber Crimes, Hyderabad. l.A. NO: 1OF 2026 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 not to arrest or interfere with the life and liberty of the petitioner in connection with FIR No.668 of 2026 dated 05-10-2026 of P.S. Cyber Crimes, Hyderabad without following the procedure Under section 35 (3) BNSS, 2023 pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T.V.RAMANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.{ TO 4: SRI MAHESH RAJE, l3P FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.S: - The Court made the following: ORDER

IN THE IIIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAI) THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TANGIRALA MADHAVI DEVI Between: Manne Krishank WRIT PETITIONNO.33803 oF 2026 (CNR No.IIB HC} t06g st7 2026) DATEI) :06. 10.2026 AND ORDE R The State of Telangana, rep. by its principal l":i:lay, Home Department, Secrerariar uurtdlng, Hyderabad and others ... Petitioner ... Respondents Seeking a declaration that the action of respondents 2 to 4 in threatening to arest and interfere with the life and liberty of the pgtitioner in connection with FIR No.66g of 2026 of Cyber Crimes Police Station, Hyderabad dt.O5.lO.2O26 without tbllowing the guidelines of the Hon'ble supreme court in the case of Arnesh Kumar TMD.J

) vs. State of Bihar and othersl, as illegal and arbitrary, this writ Petition has been filed'

2. Sri T'V. Ramana Rao, leamed counsel for the petit ioner submitted that a false complaint has been given by respondent ){o 5 and on the basis of the same, without making any preliminary ertquiry about the status of the petitioner as an 'aggrieved party" the rerspondent police have registered the subject FIR straight away' He alleges that the respondent police are trying to take coercive steps agairlst the petitioner' He has also frled copies of the photographs at pages 19 and 50 of the writ papers to demonstrate that the police are at the door step of the petitioner to arrest him' Learned counsel for the petitioner also has drawn the attention of this court to the guidelines issu.d by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Nalla Balu @ Durgam Shashidhar Goud Vs. The State of Telangana rep. by its Prrblic Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana and another2 which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Telangana Vs' Nalla Balu @ Durgam Shashidhar Goud and ' nIR 20i4 sc 2756 'E.i."ir"f p",i ionNos'4905' 4903 and 8416 of2025 dt 10 09 2025

TMD,J

another3. He submitted that the respondent police have not followed the said guidelines as well'

3. Sri Mahesh Raje, learned Government Pleader for Home submitted that the subject FIR has been registered only yesterday and the respondent police have recorded the statement of the complainant and are conducting enquiry and the issue is at preliminary stage' He submitted that after completing the investigation, appropriate steps would be taken. 4, Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that this Court, in the case of Nalla Balu (2 supra), has given certain guidelines in order to prevent the criminal process from being invoked mechanically or arbitrarily and the said guidelines have also been up held by the Hon',ble supreme court in the case of state of Telangana Vs. Nalla Baltt @ Durgam Shashidhar Goud and another (3 supra) and this is also in line with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of U'P'4, wherein it was held that a preliminary enquiry into the complaint has to be conducted before registering the FIR and if a cognizable offence has i Soecial ;save Petition (Criminal) Diary No(s).71 1 7 8 of 2025 dt.02.02.2026 '(jot+,t z scc t

TMD"J

been made out based on the contents of the first information report' the FIR has to be registered' Therefore, the respondent police have to follow the said guidelines in registering the FIR and if the provisions of law under which the FIR has been registered prescribe punishment of seven years, then the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supremt: Court of India in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs' State of Bihar and others (1 supra) have to be followed and the police would have to follorv the provisions of Section 35(3) of BNSS' In this case, the provisions of law invoked are Sections 353(2) and 352 of BNS which prescribe punishment of three years or less than three years'

5. In view thereof, the respondent police are directed to follow the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Inciia in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and others (i supra) and issue a notice under Section 35(3) ofBNSS to the petitioner end the petitioner also shall cooperate with the investigation' This observation shall' however, not come in the way of the quash petition, if any, filed by the petitioner if he so chooses. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of' No order as to costs.

TMD,J

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ petition shall stand closed.

/ffRUE COPY// SD/- M.OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SEGTION OFFICER I

To ThePrincipalsecretary,HomeDepartment,SecretariatBuilding'Hyderabad' State of Telangana. if," O"prt, C6mmissioner of Police (Crimes DD), Hyderabad City at Hyderabad i'f'l" nrii.tint Commissioner of Police, Cyber Crimes, Hyderabad The Station House Officer, P.S Cyber Crimes, Hyderabad One CC to SRI T.V.RAMANA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] i;; cc; to op ron HoME, High court for the state of Telangana' at Hyderabad. [OUT] Two CD CoPies I

PSK. PSK

CC TODAY HIGH COURT DATED: 06t1012026

ORDER

WP.No.33803 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS. I I @ f €j gf I hj, + tt oi! ;;i .'i- I ft'..7' ,./