CRLP/16160/2026 of Mothe Upender Vs The State of Telangana on 1 October 2026

ORDER

This Crimrnal Petition has been filed seeking to cuash the prcceedings in Crime No.203 of 2026 of Gambhiraopet Police Station, Rajanna Sricilla District, wherein [he petitioners rvere arrayed eLs accused Nos.1 and 2, registered for the offences purrishable under Sections 132, 351(2) arLd 292 read .,,vith 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS'J.

2. Heard Mr. V. Sarath Kumar, learned counsel for the peti:ioners appearing through video conference and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, and learned Additional Public Prosecutor tbr respondents. With their consent, this i:riminal petltion is disposcd of at the stage of admission.

3. Learned cor-rnsel for the petitioners submitted that the petit oners have not committed the alieged offences ar:d have been falsely imphcated in the present crime. Even according to the allegations levelled in the complaint, the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 132, 351(21 and 292 read with 3(5) of th; BNS are not attracted against the petitioners. The petitioners have not obstructed the official duties of respondent No.2 nor refused to furnish informatron as sought by respondent No.2. Respondent No 2 intentionally lodged the present complaint by making omnibus allegations especialiy the petitioners are having valid driving license and RC book and the same were produced belore respondent No 2' Hence, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse of the process of law. He further submitted that the offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years The lnvestigating Officer, without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'the BNSS') and u'ithout following the guidelines formulatecl b1' the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihaf , is prcceeding furthe' in the rxatter and the sarrlar is :oirlr-ar,' to Ia-'*. :+ . Per cor',tt-.1- i:a.rl.te i AdCl i-ronal P'-tb1ic Prosecutor sub:nit iec .a;-Lai i r i.sie are specrirc ailcgariolls itveiiecl against the ;r.-ttLtclc:" ilt :l, cornDIai6t *.l,at',';l-en resl'cnrien*. llo'2 directed r ilt.j,l it _\aL t;.1

thr: petitioners to produce documents pertainlng to the ve eicle, :hey made allegations against respondent No ' 2 that he is not cclmpetent to sought partlculars or informalion from the petitioner though respondent No'2 is having pou'er and ar-LthoritY to verify the documents of vehicle The said etllegations pnma faciezrttracts cognizable offences Whether the allegations made against the petitioners are true or not' the same has to be revealed dr-rring the course of investigation' erspeciallv the investigzrtion is under progress Hence' the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashment of the proceedings against them' Since the offences levelled against the petitioners are punishable rvrth imprisonment of less than seven -vears' when ttLe lnvestigatrng Officer is trying to follow the due procedure as contemplated under the provisions of Section 35(3) of the BNSS' tfre petitroners are evading the receipt of notice and not cooperating uith the investigalion from the date of registration o: crlmo

5. Learnecl counsel for the petitioners bl rva; of rcp11' s rbmitted that the Petltloners rvi11 cooPerate q'ith the investigatlon

6. Having considered 1fi6 rival submissions made by the r,3cord, it reveals that the offences ievelled against the r,lspective partles ancl upon perusal of the material available on petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. Even according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the Investigating Officer wants to follor,v the due procedure as contemplated under the provisions of Section 35(3) of the BNSS.

7. In view of the same, the petitioners are directed to appear before the Investigating Offrcer on or before 13.1O.2026 and on such appearance, the Investigating Officer is directed to follow the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the BNSS, and also the guldelines formulated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumo.r (supra) and the petilioner shall cooperate u,ith the investigation. It is needless to mention that the petitioners are entitled to submit reply to the notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS by raising all the pleas which are available to them and they are also entitied to submit the documents, if any, which are in their custody, to the Investigating Officer.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- K. BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

SECTION OFFICER

1. The Station District To, House Officer, Gam[6iraopet police Station, Rajanna Sircilla

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

3. One CC to SRl. VUCHIDI SHARATH KUMAR Advocate IOPUCI

4. Two CD Copies TPK/GNK vf'

HIGH COURT DATED: 0111012026

ORDER

CRLP.No.16160 of 2026 CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISPOSED OF ?co?c > r'- /,_*" f rttE sIa 16, 0 0 0[T zrm '/ '\1- Ll': t'.r _..-;- ,<. .a t 9 \ \o \' z-t'_- -'p. g