CRLP/9631/2026 of Chikka Latha Vs State of Telangana, on 24 September 2026

ORDER

This Criminal Petition has been hled by the petitioner/accused No.2 seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.26 of 2026 of EOW Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 338, 336(3) and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short,'BNS')

2. Heard Mr.Devdas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr..lithencler Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor fbr respondent No.1

-I

3. With their consent, the criminal petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated in the present crime by making omnibus allegations solely on the ground that she is the wife of accused No.1. He further submitted that the petitioner has neither forged nor created any docunients, as alleged by respondent No'2, nor received any amount from respondent No.2. The allegations levelled in the complaint are purdly civil in nature. He further submitted that the offences under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "BNS') are not attracted against the petitioner and both offences cannot go together, in view of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd- & Ors vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anrt. He further submitted that, except for the offence under Section 338 of the BNS, the other offences levelled against the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. The Investigating Officer, with an ' (2024) ro scc 690

=!Fr rrltr:?- rrt intention to avoid following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "BNSS"), and the guidelines formulated by the tlon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar2., irnplicated the petitioner for the offence under Section 338 ofthe BNS. Hence, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse of the process of law.

5. Ptzr contra, the learned ' Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations levelled in the complaint that the petitioner and her husband, without having any manner of right, interest,, or title over the subject property, forged and created documents and received huge amounts from respondent No.2 and others by executing documents in their favour. The said allegations attract the ingredients of Sections 3i8(4), 316(2\,338, 336(3), and340(2) of the BNS. Whether the allegations levelled in the complaint are true or not has to be revealed during the course of investigation. He further submitted that the Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of two witnesses and, since the investigation is in progress, the t12o r+ r 8 scc :r:

- petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings against him at this stage. However, accused No.l was arrested and was enlarged on bail. The Investigating Officer intends to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra). However, the petitioner is avoiding receipt of notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and is not cooperating with the investigation.

6. By way of reply, leamed counsei for the petitioner submitted that petitioner wili cooperate with the investigation, and submit her reply/explanation along with relevant documents. He further submitted that the Investigating Officer may be directed to foliow the due procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the BNSS

7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the petitioner is none other than the wife of accused No.l. The record further discloses that, except for the offence under Section 33g of the BNS, the other offences tE tE?G:!: t-E '5-t levelled against the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. Even according to the leamed Additional Public Prosecutor, accused No.1 was arrested and enlarged on bail. The Investigating Ofhcer recorded the statements of two witnesses and intends to follou, the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and also the grridelines formulated by the Hon'ble Apex Court tn Arnesh Kumur (supra).

8. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to appeal before the lnvestigating Ofhcer on or before 01 10'2026 and the lnvestigating Officer is directed to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and follow the guidelires issued by the Apex Court it Arnesh Kumar (supra)' lt is needless to mention that the petitioner rs entitled to llut forth her grievance, if any, upon receipt of notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, and produce all documents available rvith her before the lnvestigatrng Ofhcer' The petitioner shall also cooperate with the investigation'

--

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed SD/. P.C. SULEKHA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY' SECTION OFFICER

1. The Prl. Junior Civil Judge cum li/etropolitan l\,4agistrate, Rangareddy District at LB Nagar

2. The Station House Offrcer, Polrce Stbtron EOW, Cyberabad

3. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] 4 One CC to SRI B DEVADAS Advocale IOPUC]

5. Two CD Copies TPK/GNK To,

HIGH COURT DATED: 2410912026

ORDER

CRLP.No.9631 of 2026 q. x. co st $$ .r\ ATE .r D?-e I r-) .h. DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION c-q q a. ,d L ctLl0)x€ o>z