CRLP/16133/2026 of Tavva Srinivasulu Vs The State of Telangana on 6 October 2026

ORDER

This Criminal Petition has been filed bv the petitioners/accused Nos.l to 3 seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.102 of 2026 of EOW Cyb Police Station, Cyberabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 318(a) and 316(2) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short,'BNS')

2. Heard Mr.Vinod Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr.T.Venkata Anirudh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Actditional Public Prosecutor for respondent No' 1 With their consent, the criminal petition is disposed of at the stage of admisston'

4. The leamed counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed the alleged offences and have been falsel). implicated in the present crime' He further sultmitted that there was no dishonest intention on the part of the peritioners, nor was there any criminal breach of trust, cheating, di'ersion of funds, or conspiracy, as alleged in the complaint. The allegations levelled in the complaint are purel1' civil in nature and arise out of a Memorandum of Understanding entered into between petitioner No' 1 and respondent No'2, particularly in relation to a commercial transaction. He further submitted that, if anv of the tems and conditions stipulated in the Memorandum of Understanding were violated by petitioner No.1, respondent No.2 ought to have approached the competent forum for appropriate relief. Instead, respondent No.2 has lodged the present complaint by giving a criminal colour. He further submitted that the offences punishable under Sections 3 16(2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 (for short, "BNS,), are not attracted against the petitioners and both the offences cannot go together, in view of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Ors vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anrr. 4.1 . He further submitted that, in respect of petitioner No. 1 , the Investigating Officer issued a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "BNSS"), pursuant to which petitioner No.l submitted a reply. However, the Investigating Officer has not followed the same procedure in respect of petitioner Nos.2 and 3. He further submitted that, despite petitioner No.l having submitted a reply to the notice issued under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, the Investigating Ofhcer is insisting upon the personal presence of petitioner No.1, and the same is contrary to law ' lzoz+; ro scc ooo I 5 ' Per cotttra' subrnitted that specific allegations have been levelled in the corrLplaint that the petitioners acted with dishonest intention from the inception, induced respondent No'2' and diverted the funds' Whether the allegations levelled in the complaint are trtte or not has to be ascertained during the course of investigation' panicuiariy when the investigation is stiil in progress' Therefore' the leamed Additional Public Prosecutor entitled to seek quashing of the at this stage. However, since the the petitioners are not proceedhgs against them offences alleged against the petittoners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, the lnvestigating Officer has already issued a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS to petltlOner No.l. He further submitted that the Investtgatlng Of[rcer intertds to follow the same procedure in respect of petitioner Nos'2 and 3 and the petitioners shall cooperate with the, investigatlon

6. Having considered the rival submissions rnade by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals tnat ttre offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. It is not in dispute that the dispute between petitioner No.l and respondent No.3 arose out of a Memorandum of Understanding entered into between them. Whether the allegations levelled in the complaint are true or not has to be revealed during the course of investigation. Even according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the Investigating Ofhcer had already issued notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS to the petitioner No.l and intends to follow the very same procedure in respect of petitioner Nos.2 and 3

7. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the respective parties, the Investigating Officer, is directed to follow procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and follow the guidelines formulated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Biharz, in respect of petitioners and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are entitled to put forth their grievance, if any, upon receipt ofnotice under Section 35(3) ofthe BNSS, and '1zotq a scc ztz produce all documents available with them belbre the Investigating Offrcer. The petitioners shall also cooperate with the investigation

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. /ffRUE COPY// SD/.C. DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, M

1. The Principal Junior Civil Judge cum Metropolitan Magistrate' Ranga Reddy District at L.B Nagar

2. The Station House Officer, Economic Offences Wing Police Station' Cyberabad

e. One CC to SRl. T VENKATA ANIRUDH, Advocate [OPUCI

4. TwoCCstoPUBLICPRoSECUToRHighCourtfortheStateofTelangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD CoPies ADK/GNK

HIGH COURT DATED: 0611012026

ORDER

CRLP.No.16133 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE CRLP a :-.4' stH+o

1') to \Lt P.1 .:,oF r (: 7i o !. F G '9,n,