CRLP/15335/2026 of Ore Anjaneyulu, Vs The State of Telangana on 29 September 2026

ORDER

This Criminal Petition has been Iiled under Section 52g of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (for short ,the BNSS) by the petitioners/ accused Nos.2 to 5 seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 133 of 2026 of Kollapur police Station, Nagarkurnool District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 6+(2l,(ml of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'the BNSJ, Sections 9 and 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act,2006, (for short 'PCM Act') and Section 5(1) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, 2Ol2 (for short the POCSO ActJ.

2. Mr. V. Jithender Rao, learned Additional public prosecutor submits that pursuant to the order dated 18.O9.2026, tine \-

Inverstigating Officer had served notice of intimation to respondent No.ll on 21.O9.2026 and placed a copy of the said intimation.

3. Heard Mr. Chekuri Yadagiri, learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No. 1. With their consent, the criminal petition ts disposed of at the stage of admission.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submittecl that the peti:ioners have not committed the alleged offences and have been falst:1y implicated in the present. crime. Even according to the allegations ler.elled in the complaint, the entire allegations are levelled against accused No. 1. The petitioners were rmplicated as acctLsed only on the ground that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the parents of accused No.1 and petitloner Nos.3 and 4 are the parents of the victim girl. The ingredients of the offences punishabie under Sections 6aQ)@) of the BNS, and Section 5(1) read with Section 6 of ttLe POCSO Act are not attracted against the petitioners and the said offences attract only against accused No.1. The on11' allegation levelled rn the complaint against the petitioners is that the petitioners, being the parents of accused No.1 and parents of victim girl, performed their marriage when the victim girl is a minor. Hence, the ingredients of the offences under Sections 9 ald 10 o[ the PCM Act are not attracted against the petitioners. Hence,

--J

the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse of the process of law. He further submitted that the Investigating Officer, without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and without following the guidelines formulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. Sta:te of Biharl, is proceeding further in tJle matter and the same is contrary to law.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations levelled in the complaint against the petitioners that the petitioners, being parents of accused No. 1 and parents of the victim girl, performed their marriage by knowing that the victim girl is a minor. Whether the allegations levelled against the petitioners are true or not, the same has to be revealed during the course of investigation and the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashment of proceedings against them at threshold, especially when the investigation is under progress. He further submitted that, since the offences under Sections 9 ald 10 of the PCM Act are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, when the Investigating Officer is trying to follow the due procedure as contemplated under the provisions of Section 35(3) of the BNSS, the petitioners are evading the receipt of notice '(2014) 8 scc 273

.- ancl not cooperating with the investigation from the date of registration of crime.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners by way of replv submitted that the petitioners will cooperate with the investigation. 7 . Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties ald upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that accused No.1 was already arrested and remanded to the judicia-l custody on 09.09.2026. Insofar as the offences under Sections 6a(2)(m) of the BNS, and Section 5(1) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act are concerned, those offences may not attract against the petitioners jn the present crime. However, the other offences levelled against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the Investigating Officer, wan[s to follou. the due procedure as contemplated under the provisions of Section 35(3) of the BNSS.

8. Taking into consideration the above said submissions made by the respecrive parties, the petitioners are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on or before 12.10.2026 and on such appezrrance, the Investigating Officer is directed to follorv the procedurp contemplated under the provisions of the BNSS, and also the guidelines formulated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in rIr-t

Arnesh Kumqr (supral and the petitioners sha11 cooperate with 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 is also entitled to submit the documents, if any, which are in their custody, to the Investigating Ofhcer.

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed \ SD/- B. REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 'l . The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Kollapur.

2. The Station House Officer, Kollapur Police Station, Nagarkurnool District,

3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to Sri. Chekuri yadagiri, Advocate [OPUC]

5. Two CD Copies Pr/cNK Ij tc- To, I

HIGH COURT DATED: 2910912026

ORDER

CRLP.No.15335 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION Y n .. nll 2ffi f

- .t. 'r.i, fii rl ;-; ,'r ._r a

D