CRLP/16310/2026 of Chandu Pandiri @ Pandiri Chandra Sekhar Vs The State of Telangana on 6 October 2026

Order:

This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (for short 'the BNSS) by the petitioners / accused Nos.1 to 5 seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.219 ol 2026 of Narkatpally Police Station, Nalgonda Distrrct, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 329(3), 324(4),352, 351(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'the BNSJ.

2. Heard Mr. V. Raghunath, learned Senior Counsel, representing Ms. Verose Sanjana, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No. 1-state. With their - ) admi ssion

3. Learnt-d Senior counsel lor the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed the alleged offences and have been falselv implicated in the present crime. The allegations levelled in the complaint are purelv civil in nature, in respect of agricultural land. Respondent No.2 ought to have approached a competent civil CourL, on the other hand. Iodged the present complaint by giving it a criminal colour. He further submits that petitioner No.5 lodged a complaint again st one Malleboina Ramalingaiah and four others and birsing on the said complarnt, crime No.12I of 2020 was registered by police, Narkatpally Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 read with 34 of the Indial Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC). The Investigating Officer, after conducting the investigation, fi1ed hnal report before the Judiciai First Clirss Magistrate (for Prohibition and Excise Offences) at N.r lgonda (1br short 'the trial Court') and the said case was numbered as C.C.No.1295 of 2O26. Similarly, petrtioner No.2 also lodged complaints against the said Malleboina Ranralingaiah and others ald the same rvere registered as crime Nos.93 and 145 of 2o2o o1' Narkarpalll' police Station. The Investigating officer, after condn<:ring the irvestigation, firecl finar report before the triar court cons(-'nt, lhe criminal petition 1S ernd thr: cases \r.e re numbered as C.C.Nos. 1293 and disposed of at the stage of

- When the said cases were pending before the trial Court, respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint as counter a b1ast, especially, the wife of petitioner No.1 is absolute owner and possessor of the subject property and her name was mutated in the revenue records and E-Pattadar passbooks were issued in her name. Hence, the question of trespassing into the property by the petitioners as alleged by respondent No.2 in the present complaint does not arise and the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse of the process of law.

4. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specilic allegations levelled in the complaint against the petitioners that the petitioners have trespassed into the subject property, damaged the crop and threatened respondent No.2 with dire consequences. Whether the allegations levelled against the petitioners are true or not, the same has to be revealed during the course of investigation and the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashment of proceedings against them at threshold, especially when the investigation is under progress. He further submitted that, since the offences levelled against petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, the Investigating Officer will follow the due procedure as contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and also the guidelines formulated by -- the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. Stcrte of Biharl, and the petitioner slrall cooperate with the investigation.

5. Learned Senior Counsel by way of reply submitted that the petitione rs s i1l cooperate with the investigation.

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record. it rcveals that the offences levelled against the petitioners are punrshable u,ith imprisonment of less than seven years. Even according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the Investigating Olficer wants to follow the due procedure as contenrplated under thc provrsions of the 35(3) of the BNSS.

7. In vies' of the same, the Investigating Officer is directed to follou' the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the BNSS, and also the guidelines formulated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar lsupral in respect of pet.itioners/ accused Nos.I to 5 and the petitioners shall cooperate with the investigatiorr. It is needless to mention that the petitloners are entitlecl to subn-rit reply'to the notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS b1- raising all the pleas *-hich are available to them and they are also entitled to submit the documents, if any, which are in 1(2014) a scc 273

To, their custody, soon after receiving the notice from the Investigating Officer

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition Miscellaneous applications, pending if is disposed of. any, sha11 stand closed SD/. B. REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The Judicial First Class t\/agistrate (Excise & Prohibition) at Nalgonda'

2. stationHouseofficerPoliceStationNarkatpally,NalgondaDistrict.

3. One CC to Ms. Verose Sanjana, Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two ccs to PUBLIC PRosECUTOR High court for the state of Telangana', at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD CoPies BA/GNK ay

HIGH COURT DATED: 0611012026

ORDER

Fr v a

CT 16 0 c ( D() ). "/' * .\ CRLP.No.16310 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION e (r'-l \o ! .-h cl - ]. .^i.Q