Telangana High Court
CRLP/16010/2026 of Kolluru Rajesh Vs The State of Telangana on 30 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEIUBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 16010 OF 2026 Between: 1. Kolluru Rajesh, S/o K. Sundhar, aged about 35 years, Occupation.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEIUBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 16010 OF 2026
Between:
1. Kolluru Rajesh, S/o K. Sundhar, aged about 35 years, Occupation. Private Employee, R/o H.No.8-3-195/8/1, Vengal Rao Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad.
2. K. Sundhar, S/o Kolluru Pullaiah, aged about 40 years, R/o H.No.8-3-195/8/1, Vengal Rao Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad.
3. K. Yellesh, S/o K. Sundhar, aged about 35 years, R/o H. No.B-3-195/8/1 , Vengal Rao Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad.
...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 to 3
AND
1. The State of Telangana, through S.H.O., Madhura Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad District, rep. by is Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad-
2. M.C Vijay Adhitya Goud, lnspector of Police, HYDRAA, Hyderabad
...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS
Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the lVlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to FIR No.625 of 2026 on the file of the Station House Officer, Police Station l\iladhura Nagar, Hyderabad, and quash the proceedings thereon.
l.A. NO: 2 OF 2026
Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the lVlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to FIR No.625 of 2026 of Police Station [\4adhura Nagar, Hyderabad, including the arrest of the Petitioners, in the interest of justice This Petition comrng on for hearing, upon perusing the A/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri B KOTESWARA
RAO, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the Addl. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared on behalf of the Respondent No.2.
The Court made the following: ORDER
E:GEGEE'
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGA-IIA
ATIIYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.16010 of2026
CNRNo. H8HC010673272 026
Date: 30. 09.2026
Between:
Kolluru Rajesh and 2 others
...Petitioners
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 under Section 52g of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (for short .the BNSS,) by the petitioners/accused Nos.l to 3 seeking to quash the proceedings in crime No.625 of 2026 of Madhura Nagar police Station, Hyderabad District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 32g (3),221,351
(2) and 324 (4) riw. 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 2023 (for short 'the BNS').
2. Heard Mr.B.Koteswara Rao, leamed counsel for the petitioners and Nfr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional public prosecutor. appearing for respondent Nos. i and 2.
\- J With their consent, the criminal petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.
4. Leamed counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not committed any offence and have been falsely implicated in the present crime. The allegations levelled in the complaint are purely civil in nature in respect of the immovable properfy' He further submits that respondent No.2 ought to have approached the competent civil Court; however, instead, he filed the presenJ complaint by giving a criminal colour. Hence, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse of the process of law' He further submits that the offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment for a term of less than seven years. However, the Investigating Officer' without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha' 2023 (for short 'BNSS') and the guidelines issued by the Apex Covt in Arnesh Kumar Vs. Stale of Bihart, is proceeding with the investigation and the same is contrary to law.
5. Per contra, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioners are claiming rights over the property on the basis of the '(2014) 8 scc 273
EBIEIE:'
unregistered Agreement of Sale dated 19.01.2019. The petitioners are not entitled to claim any right or title over the property on the basis of the said document unless and until the Agreement of Sale culminates in the execution of a Sale Deed, as envisaged under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Hence, the petitioners do not have any right, title, or interest over the property and, instead, ought to approach the competent Civil Court and establish their title over the property. He Iurther submits that the Investigaling Officer intends to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra) on the ground that the alteged offences levelled against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. However, the petitioners have not been cooperating with the investigation.
6. By way of reply, leamed counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners will cooperate with the Investigating Officer. 7 . Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record. it reveals that there are specific allegations in the complaint that the petitioners, without having any right over the property, are claiming rights therein on the basis of an Agreement of Sale. Whether the allegations levelled in the complaint are true or not will be revealed during the course of investigation, especially the investigation is still in progress. However, the offences levelled against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. Even according to the leamed Additional Public Prosecutor, the Investigating Officer will follow the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) ofthe BNSS and also the guidelines formulated by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra).
8. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions made by the respective parties, the petitioners/accused Nos.l to 3 are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on or before 12.10 "2026, and on such appearance, the Investigating Offtcer is directed to issue notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS and follow the guidelines issued by the Apex Cotxt'tn Arnesh Kumar (supra). It is needless to mention that the petitioners/accused Nos.l to 3 are entitled to put forth their grievance upon receipt of the notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and is also entitled to submit the documents, if any, which are in their possession.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. ::4::
d!!E t To, @ Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/- P.C. SULEKHA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER
1. The XIV Addl. Chief Judicial lVlagistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad
2. The Station House Officer, Police Station lrrladhura Nagar, Hyderabad 3 T,rvo CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]
4. One CC to SRI B KOTESWARA RAO Advocate IOPUC]
5. T'wo CD Copies TPK/GNK
HIGH COURT DATED: 301091202G
ORDER
1!iE e Lr, - \ 'ao\ .4. 0 s ocl 2026 + .) () r-) * * (r tr CRLP.No.16010 of 202G DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION & f rc. E, g(tsf ^r/ ,!\