CRLP/15904/2026 of Afreen Begum Vs The State of Telangana on 29 September 2026

ORDER

This Criminal Petition . has been filed bv the petitioners/accused Nos.l to 3 seeking to quz,sh the proceedings in Crime No.1022 of 2026 of Attapur Police Station, IJyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sectiors 308(5), 352, 351(2) and 115(2) rlw 3(5) ofthe Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNS')

2. Heard Sri Mohammad Habeebuddin, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned 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 submits that the petitioners have not committed the alleged offences and have been falsely implicated in the present case. The allegations levelled against the petitioners are purely civil in nature. Respondent No.2 ought to have approached the competent Civil Court; on the other hand, she filed the present complaint by giving criminal colour. He submits that petitioner No.1 purchased the subject property from Mrs. Hafeeza Begum through a registered sale deed dated 16.0'7.2026 by paying valuable sale consideration. Therefore, the question of claiming any rights over the property from respondent No.2 or insisting that respondent No.2 pay an amount of Rs.10 lakhs for vacating the subject property in favour of respondent No.2 does not arise. There is no landlordtenant relationship between the petitioners and respondent No.2, especially as petitioner No.1 is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject property, having purchased the same through a registered sale deed. He further submits that the Investigating Officer implicated the petitioners for the offence under Section 308(5) of the BNS with an intention to avoid following the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for shcr|t;''eNSS'). He further submits that the ingredients of the offence under Secrion 308(5) of the IINS are not attracted against the petitioners. Hence, continuatic,n of the proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse ofprocess of law.

5. Per contra, leamed Additional public prosecutor submits that there are specific allegations in the complaint that respondent No.2 and her husband are the owners of the subject property and petitioner No.l had taken the said property on rent. When respondent No.2 demanded petitioner No. 1 kr vacate the premises and hand over the physical possession cf the property, the petitioners instigated respondent . No.2 to pay a1 amount of Rs.10 lakhs and also abused and threatened her. The allegations levelled in the complaint prima facie disclose a cognizable offence. The investigation is under progress and petitioner No.l is involved in three crimes. At this stage, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings. He further submirted that the Investigating Officer wants to follow the pror:edure ,Jontemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and zlso the guidelines formulated by the Apex Court in Arnesh ll-umar Vs. State of Bihart on the ground thar the offences under Section s 352, 351(2) '1zo r a; s scc zr:

-- and 115(2) r/w 3(5) of the BNS are punishable with imprisonment Iess than years.

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that petitioner No.l is claiming rights over the propefiy based on the registered sale deed dated 16.07.2026 whereas respondent No.2, in the complaint, specifically stated that petitioner No.1 is occupying the premises as a tenant. Whether the allegations levelled in the complaint are true or not will be revealed during the course of investigation. - Even according to the leamed Additional Public Prosecutor, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of LWs.l to 3 and the investigation is under progress. A perusal of the complaint further reveals that the offence under Section 308(5) of the BNS may not be attracted against the petitioners. The offences under Sections 352,351(2) and I 15(2) r/w 3(5) of the BNS are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years.

7. In view of the above, the petitioners are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on or before 12.10.2026 and submit reply/expfanation along with the documents, which are available with them, to the Investigating Oflicer. The Investigating Offrcer is entitled to follow the procedur.e contemplated under Section 35(3) of'the BNSS and follow rhe guidelines issued by rhe Apex Clourt in Arnesh Kumar (supra). I Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is rlisposerl of N4iscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed SD/- P.C.SULEKHA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The lll Addl. Junior civil Judge cum XXV Addl. Judir:ial lVlagistrate of First Class, Rangareddy District at Rajendranagar. 2 The Station House Officer, Police Station AttapL r, Hyderabad 3-TwoCCstoPUBL|CPROSECUTORHighCoLrrtfortheStateofTelangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to SRI IMOHAI/MED HABEEBUDDIN ,\dvocate IOPUC]

5. Two CD Copies To, A/b/ TPt(BA

HIGH COURT DATED: 2910912026

ORDER

CRLP.No.15904 of 2026 Y

- ---:_:_':_: _'-\ 1-. .r r, r. s ': .,r.. ,' 4' -,s 01 0cT2026 k) (- I ,,t... \r,r, \. l, 'i\.-_ - DISPOS!NG OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION \rb tt