CRLP/16060/2026 of Bollaveni Prashanth Vs The State of Telangana on 1 October 2026

ORDER

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.157 of 2026 of Pegadapally Police Station, Jagtiai, for the offence punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(2) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023(for short, "BNS").

2. Heard Mr. Raghu Gurram, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalia, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1

3. With their consent, the criminal petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed the alleged offences and have been falsely implicated in the present crime by making omnibus ailegations. Especially, the petitloners were suffered in the hands of the clejocto complainant and others. The petitioner No'1 lodged a :omplalnt before the very same police station on 26 '09 '2026 against the respondent No.2 de-facto complainant and two others' Basing on the said complaint, FIR No.1 59 of 2026 of Pegadapally Pc,lice Station, Jagtral, was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(2) r/w 3(5) olthe BNS' When the said crime is pending, the respondent No'2 fi1ed the present complaint by giving it a criminal colour as a counter blast against the petitioners. Hence, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse of the process of tire 1aw' He furlher submitted that the offences levelled against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years' The Investigating Otficer, without following the mandatory procedure pr:escribed under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') and without following the g,ridelines formulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Courl in Arnesh J Kumar Vs. State of Bihar| , is proceeding further in the matter and the same is contrary to law.

5. Per contra, learred Additional public prosecutor for respondent No. 1 submits that there are specific allegations ievelled in the complaint that the petitioners assaulted and indiscriminately beaten the respondent No.2, resulting which, the respondent No.2 sustained injuries in the hands of the petitioners. Mere pendency of Crime No.159 of 2026 filed by the petitioner No.l, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings, especiaily when the investigation is under progress. The said allegations leveled in the complaint attract the ingredients for the offence punishable under Sections 296(b), ll5(2), 11S(1), 351(2) r/w 3(5) of the BNS and the petitioners are not entitled to any relief much less than the relief sought in the present Criminal petition. However, since the offence alleged against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, the Investigating Officer intends to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and the guidelines laid down by the Hon'b1e Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra). However, the ' 1zou1 a scc ztl petitioners are avoiding receipt of notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and are not cooperating with the investigation

6. By way of reply, leamed counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners will cooperate with the investigation He furlher submitted that the lnvestigating Ofhcer 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 record, it reveals that there is a counter case pending against the petitioners in Crime No.i59 of 2026 before the very same police station and that the offences levelled against the petitioners are punishable rvith imprisonment of less than seven vears. Even according to the leamed Additional Public Prosecutor, the Investigating Officer intends to fo1low the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and also the guidelines formulated by the Apex Courl in Arnesh Kumar (supra)

8. Taking into consideration the peculiar thcts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the

To, respective parties, the petitioners are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on or before 30.10.2026. On such appearance, the Investigating Officer is directed to scrupuiously follow the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, as well as the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra). It is needless to mention that the petitioners are entitled to put forth their grievance by raising all the pleas which are available to them under law, and they are also entitled to submit the documents, if any, which are in their custody, to the Investigating Officer. The petitioners shall also cooperate with the investigation.

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 ll Addl. Judicial [Vagistrate of First Class, Jagtial.

2. The Station House Officer, Police Station Pegadapalli, Jagtial District

3. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Hlgh Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to SRl. RAGHU GURRAM Advocate IOPUC]

5. Two CD Copies TPK/GNK4j-

HIGH COURT DATED: 0111012026

ORDER

CRLP.No.16060 ot 2026 s;TATE O $$ $lt .r ,a :) '),) $q N. D , 'li'1 ' \': CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISPOSED OF t b lLo lah )