CRLP/15721/2026 of Bandi Raju Vs The State of Telangana, on 29 September 2026

ORDER:-

1. This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha (BNSS), 2023, seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.7 in FIR No.104 of 2026, on the file of Doulthabad Police Station, Siddipet District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 89, 49, 85, 351(2),352 read with 3(5) ofthe Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for short 'BNS'); Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Sections 3(l)(r) and 3(1)(s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

2. Heard Sri D.L.Pandu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithendel Rao Veeramalla, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1-State. With their consent, the Criminal Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission

3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the leamed Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the lnvestigation Officer has served notice upon the defacto complainant on 23.09.2026 informing about filing of the present Criminal petition and listing of the matter on 29.09.2026. Despite the same, the respondent No.2 has not chosen to enter appearance before this Court. -Hence, this Court is not having any option except to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he was falsely implicated in the present crime. There are no allegations, much less specific allegations against the petitioner that the petitioner abused respondent No.2 in the name of her caste. The petitioner being an Ex-Sarpanch of Muthyampeta Gram panchayat and as an elderly person to dissolve the disputes between accused No.1 and other accused with the respondent No.2, especially the disputes arose out of matrimonial disputes, the respondent No.2 implicated the petitioner as an accused No.7 by -l:it=!FBrEEt making omnibus allegations. Hence, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse of process of 1aw. He further submits that the offence levelled against the petitioner under Section 89 of BNS do not get attracted against the petitioner and the other offences are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. Investigating Officer, without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) of BNSS and without following the guidelines formulated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihart, is proceeding with the investigation, which is contrary to law.

5. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner. Whether the allegations levelled in the complaint are true or not will be revealed during the course of investigation which is under progress. He further submitted that accused No.1 was arrested on 19.09.2026 The investigation officer service notice under Section 35(3)of BNSS in respect of accused Nos.2 to 6 and A8 to A10 on 22.09.2026. When the Investigation Officer tried to serve notice upon the petitioner, the petitioner is evading to receive the notice and is not cooperative with '(zot+) e scc zza the investigation from the date of registration of crime i.e., on 10.09.2026.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by way of reply, submits that the petitioner will cooperate with the investigation. 7 . Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner being an Ex-Sarpanch of the Muthyampeta Gram Panchayat (Surampally Gram Panchayat) acted as a mediator between the accused and the defacto complainant. Whether the allegations leveled in the complaint are true or not will be revealed during the course of investigation. The offence under Section 89 of BNS prima facie may not attract against the petitioner and the remaining offences leveled against the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. Even according .. to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the Investigating Officer has already served notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS in respect of ,A2 to ,46 and A8 to A10 on22.09.2026 and the lnvestigating Officer wants to follow the very same procedure in respect of the petitioner/accused No.7 herein

To,

8. Taking into consideration of the peculiar facts and clr'cumstances and the submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on or before \2.10.2026. On such appearance, the Investigating Officer is directed to follow the due procedure as contemplated under Section 41-A of the cr.p.c./Section 35(3) of the BNSS and also the guidelines formulated by the Hon,ble Apex Court in .Arneslt Kumar supra. It is needless to mention that the petitioner is enlitled to put forth his grievance by raising all the pleas which are available to him and also submit the documents, if any, which are in his possession to the Investigating Officer.

9. With the above said directions, the Criminal petition is disposed of accordingly.

10. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/. L. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Court at Gajwel.

2. The Station House Officer, Doulthabad Police Station, Siddipet District. 3, Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to Sri. D L Pandu, Advocate [OPUC]

5. Two CD Copies GNK

HIGH COURT DATED: 2910912026

ORDER

CRLP.No.'t5721 ot 2026 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION '( HE ST4 16 2m {.{ .-l /.\ t ii3 o 5 o[T \.\../r,\i i., ' Jt/ t