Telangana High Court
CRLP/16480/2026 of Lalith Balhothra, Vs The State of Telangana, on 6 October 2026
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 CRIMINA L PETITION NO: 16480 OF 2026 [ 3303 ] Ramesh Balhothra, Aged about 45 Years, Occ: 3-5-380, Sirsilk Colony, Kagaznagar, K B
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
CRIMINA L PETITION NO: 16480 OF 2026
Ramesh Balhothra, Aged about 45 Years, Occ:
3-5-380, Sirsilk Colony, Kagaznagar, K B Asifabad
...Petitioner/Accused No.1
Between:
AND
Lalrth Balhothra, S/o
Business, R/o. H.No.
District.
The State of Telangana,, through S.H.O. Kagaznagar Town Police Station, K B Asifabad District, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad I\I.A. lmran, S/o M.A.Habeeb, Aged about 36 Years, Occ Business, R/o.Q.No.C-36, Sirsilk Colony, Kagaznagar ' K.B. Asifabad District
... Respondents/Co m Pla ina nt
Petition under section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated ln the lvlemorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to call for the records relating to the crime in F.l.R.No. 317 ol 2026 On the file of the Kagaznagar Town Police Station for the offence U/Sec' 296(b),115 (1), 351(2) rlw 3(5) BNS to quash the same.
l.A. NO: 2 OF 2026
Petitron under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the l/emorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in F.l.R.No. 317 of 2026 On the file of the kug^.n^g., Town Police Station for the offence U/Sec 296(b),'1 15 (1)' 351(2) r/w 3(5) BNS, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition.
This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the [\4emorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Rudresh Deshpande, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 .
The Court made the following: ORDER
----4.
IN TIIE HIGII COURT FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.16480 of2026
CNR.No. HBHC01068 8632026
Date:06.10.2026
Between:
Lalith Balhothra
...Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana 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 filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.317 of 2026 of Kagaznagar-Town Police Station, Kumrambheem Asifabad District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(1) and 351(2) rlw 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 (for short 'BNS').
2. Heard Mr.Rudresh Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.l .
3. With their consent, the criminal petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.
4. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated in the present crime by making omnibus allegations. The allegations levelled in the complaint are purely cil'il in nature. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the ingredients of Sections 296(b),115(1) and 351(2) r/w 3(5) of the BNS are not attracted against the petitioner. He further submitted that respondent No.2 ought to have approached the competent civil Court; on the other hand filed the present complaint by giving criminal colour. Hence, the continuati.on of pr,rceedings agai.nst the petitioner is a clear abuse of the process of law.
4.1. He further submits that the offences levelled against the petitioner are punishable with imprisorurlent of iess than seven years and the lnvestigating Officer, without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) of the Blraratiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for shorl 'BNSS')
- and without following the guidelines formuiated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihart, 1S proceeding further in the matter and the same is contrary to law.
5. Per contra, the leamed Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there are specific allegations levelled in the complaint against the petitioner to attract the ingredients of Sections 296(b), 115(1) and 351(2) rlw 3(5) of the BNS Whether the allegations levelled'in the complaint are true or not the same has to be revealed during the course of investigation especially the investigation is under progress. The petitioner is not entitled to seek quashment of the proceedings against him at this stage. However, since the offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, the lnvestigating Officer intends to fol1ow the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra). However, the petitioner is avoiding receipt of notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and is not cooperating with the investigation '1zo r+; 8 scc zz:
l
6. By way of reply, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner will cooperate with the investigation, and submit his replyi'explanation along with relevant documents. He fur1her submitted that the Investigating Offrcer may be directed to fo11ow the due procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the BNSS 7 . Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on rec;ord, it reveals that the offences levelled against petitioner are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. Even according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the Investigating Ofhcer will follow the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and also the guidelines formulated by the Apex Cour1. in Arnesh Kumar (supra).
8. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Ofhcer on or before 17.10.2026 and the Investigating Officer is directed to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and fbllow the guidelines issued by the Apex Cowt rn Arnesh Kumar (supra). It - To, is needless to mention that the petitioner is entitled to put forth his grievance , if arly, upon receipt of notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, and produce all documents available with him before the Investigating Ofhcer. The petitioner shall also cooperate with the investigation
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shali stand closed. SD/.C. DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER
1. Station House Officer Kagaznagat Town Police Station, Kumrambheem Asifabad District.
2. One CC to SRI RUDRESH DESHPANDE Advocate IOPUC]
3. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad IOUTj
4. Two CD Copies BA/GNK
HIGH COURT DATED: 0611012026 e o5 rE(' rr.. p t q ..}s L, + \ \\ o .r. F
ORDER
ll + o"ei 9rH CRLP.No.16480 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION Riv \r,o \(' \r) *