Telangana High Court
CRLP/15272/2026 of Batta Nagender Vs The State of Telangana on 30 September 2026
Between: AND 1 Batta Nagender, S/oBatta Kumara Swamy Age 31 years Occ Agriculture R/oHNo2-50A Veerabhadravaram Viltage Venkatapuram Mandal (Nugur) Mulugu District Mancheral Nageshwara Rao, S/o Venkateshwarlu Age 3g years Occ Agriculture Rl/o HNo2-60 Veerabhadravaram Village Venkatapuram Mandal
Between:
AND
Batta Nagender, S/oBatta Kumara Swamy Age 31 years Occ Agriculture R/oHNo2-50A Veerabhadravaram Viltage Venkatapuram Mandal (Nugur)
Mulugu District
Mancheral Nageshwara Rao, S/o Venkateshwarlu Age 3g years Occ Agriculture Rl/o HNo2-60 Veerabhadravaram Village Venkatapuram Mandal (Nugur) Mulugu District Mancheral Jakku, S/oNarasimha Age 50 years Occ Agriculture Rl/oHNo2-60
Veerabhadravaram Village Venkatapuram Mandal (Nugur) Mulugu District IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO
GRIMINAL PETITION NOi'15272OF 2026
...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED Nos. 1 ro 3
1. The State of Telangana, Rep by its State public prosecutor High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad rhrough sHo ps Venkatapuram police station Venkatapuram (Nugur) Mulugu Diskict
...RESPONDENT
2. Sri Pendagantla Rambabu, S/o P Annayya Age 50 years Occ Sub-Divisional Engineer - BSNL (Central Government Employee) Caste ST-Koya R/oHNo2- 179 Medaram Village SS Thadvai Mandal Mulugu District
...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT
Petition under section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to call for the records in connection with the case in cr.No.156 of 2026 dated 12.09.2026 registered for the offences U/sec 296-b, 115(2),351 (2) R/w 3(5) of BNS
sec3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) sc sr PoA Act on the file of rhe sHo Venkatapuram potice Station Venkatapuram (Nugur), Mulugu District and to quash the same by allowing the above petition herein.
l.A. NO: 2OF 2026
Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the police to strictly follow the procedure under section 35(3) of BNSS and also the guide'ines held by the Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar Judgment reported in 2014 (8) SCC 273. ln connection with the in Cr.No. 156 of 2026 dated 12.O9.2026, on the file of The The Station House Officer, Venkatapuram Police Station, Venkatapurm (Nugur), lvlulugu District, since the alleged offences are punishable below Seven years, disposal of the above Criminal Petition.
l.A. NO: 3 OF 2026
Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay all further proceedings in connection with the Cr.No.156 of 2026 dated
12.O9.2026, on the file of The SHO Venkatapuram Police Station Venkatapuram (Nugur), ltrlulugu District including arrest of the petitioners/ Accused No.1 to 3
pending disposal of the above criminal petition.
This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the lVlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the Petitioners, Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2.
The Court made the following: ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENTVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITIoN No.15272 of2026
cNR.No. HBHCO 10639742026
Date : 3O.O9.2026
Between
Batta Nagender and two others
.. Petitioners / accused Nos. 1 to 3
AND
The State of Telangana and another
...Respondents
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
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 seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.156 of 2026 of Venkatapuram Police Station, Mulugu District, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 3, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 351(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyayh Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS) and Section 3(r)(r)(s), and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribps (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the SCs/STs Act).
2. Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Pr'rblic Prosecutor submits that pursuant to the order dated
18. O9.2026, the Investigating Ofhcer intimated notice to respondent No.2 about the filing of criminal petition and [sting of the matter on 18.09.2O26 and placed a cop]. of the said intjmation. In spite of the recetpt of intimation, respondent No.2 has not chosen to enter appearance. Hence, this Crturt is not having an1 option except to proceed with the matter, in ar:cordance with law.
3. Heard Mr. M. Srrnivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, and learned Aclditional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1. With their consent, this criminal petition disposed of at the stage of 1S ad mission
4. Leitrned counsel lor the petitioners submitted that the pe ,itione rs have not committed the alleged offences and have ber:n fa1se1r, implicated in the present crime. The petitioners ha.re not receir,,ed any amount from respondent No.2, ho,*.ever, respondenr No.2 Iodged the present complaint on behalf of third partl bl' allegins that rvhen respondent No.2 demzrnded lo retlrrn the anloultt ,,vhich was borrowed by the petitioners lrom third parrr', the petitioners have abused respondent No.2 tho,rgh thev itave: not abused respondent No.2 in rhe name of his caste. Hence, the continuation of the proceedir-rgs against the petitioners is a clear abuse of the process of law,. Hr: further submitted that the offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. The Investigating Officer, without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 3S(3) of the Bharatrya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short the BNSS) and without following the guidelines formulated by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs, State oJ Bihanl, is proceeding further in the matter and the same is contrary to law.
5. Per contra, learned Additional public prosecutor submitted that there are specihc allegations ievelled against the petitioners that the petitioners have received huge amount from third party through an agreement and when they failed to execute the sale deed, respondent No.2 demanded the petitioners to return the money on behalf of third party, then the petitioners have assaulted respondent No.2 in the name of his caste and also threatened him. The alleged incident primo facie attracts cognizable offence. He further submits that accused Nos.1 and 2 were involved in other crimes. Whether the allegations made against the petitioners are true or not, the same has to be revealed during the course of investigation, especially the investigatron is under progress. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashment of the '(zo t+) 6 scc zz:
F,roceeclings against them. Srnce the oflences levelled against t re petitloncrs are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, the Investigating Ofhcer will follow the due procedlrre as contemplated under the provisions of Section 35(3) oithe BNSS.
Having considered the rival submissions made by the re spective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the offences levelled against the pertitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven J,/ears. Even according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the Investigating Officer wants to follov, the due prrcedure as contemplated under the provisions of Section 35(3) of the BNSS.
7. In vieu of the same, the petrtioners are directed Lo appear belbre the Investigating Officer on or before 12.1O,2026 and on sur:h appearance, rhe Investigating Ofhcer is directed to follou, the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the BNSS, ancl also rhe gtridelines formulated bv the Hon,ble Apex Court in Anresh Kurnql (supra) and the petitioners shall cooperate ri.ith the invest igation. It is needless to mention that the pr.titioners are entitled tc submit reply to the notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS bv raising all the pleas which are available to them and they are also entitled 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 SD/- K, BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, SECTION OFFICER
1. The Station House Officer, Mulugu District Venkatapuram Police Station, Venkatapuram
2. Two ccs to Pubric prosecutor, High court for the state of rerangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]
3. One CC to Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, Advocate tOpUCl
4. Two CD Copies VH/GNK <"t-
HIGH COURT DATED: 3010912026
ORDER
CRLP.No.15272 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION 7 r'ape 5 CI q il[T 2!i5 , 1t,.1 1 . FE