CRLP/15777/2026 of NAVEEN BHANSALI Vs THE STATE OF TELANGANA on 24 September 2026

ORDER

This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.61l of 20t6 of Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad, wherein the petitioners were arayed as accused Nos.2 and 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 336(3), 338 and 340 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for short 'BNS').

2. Heard Mr.B.Shanker, leamed for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 .

3. With the consent of both the leamed counsel, the criminal petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

-

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed the alleged offences and have been falsely implicated in the present crime' Even according to the allegationsmadeinthecomplaint,theingredientsofSections336(3), 338and340oftheBNSarenotattractedagainstthepetitionersand the entire allegations are directed against accused No'l alone' He further submitted that accused No.l f,rled a suit in O'S'No'5317 of 2025 againstrespondent No.2 and others seeking a decree ofperpetual injunction. While the said suit is pending, respondent No'2 flrled O'S' No.751 of 2026 seeking eviction and O'S'No'968 of 2026 seeking a decree of perpetual injunction. Wfren tfre said two suits are pending before the competent Civil Court, namely, the V Junior Civil Judge' City Civil Court, Hyderabad, respondent No'2 filed the present complaint by giving a criminal colour to the civil disputes pending beforethecompetentCivilCourt.Hefurthersubmittedthatthe petitioners have neither forged nor fabricated any documents as alleged in the complaint. Hence, the ingredients of Section 336(3) of the BNS are not attracted against the petitioners' He further submits that the petitioners have been implicated for the offences under Sections 338 and 340 of the BNS only to avoid following the .) -/ procedure under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "BNSS"), and the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihart. Hence continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse of process of law.

5. Per contra,leamed Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations in the complaint that the petitioners forged and fabricated a rental agreement deed and are claiming rights over the subject property. Whether the allegations levelled in the complaint are true or not has to be revealed during the course of investigation, and the investigation_ is still in progress. Hence the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of proceedings at this stage. He further submitted that accused No. 1 was arrested and enlarged on bail. However, the offences levelled against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years and the Investigating Offrcer is trying to serve notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS'), but, the petitioners have been avoiding receipt of the notice under Section 35(3) ofthe BNSS and have not been cooperating with the investigation since the date of registration of the crime, i.e., 09.07.2026. '(20 r4) 8 scd 273.

-

6. By way of reply, leamed counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners will cooperate with the investigation, and submit their reply/explanation along with relevant documents' He further submitted that the Investigating Officer may be directed to follow the due procedure as contemplated under the provisions ofthe BNSS'

7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that, in respect of the very same subject property mentioned in the complaint, O.SNo.53l7 of 2025 filed by accused No'l and O.S.Nos.751 and 968 of 2026 filed by respondent No'2 are pending before the competent Civil Court. Even according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the Investigating officer intends to followtheprocedurecontemplatedunderSection35(3)oftheBNSS and also the guidelines formulated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumu v. State of Biharz.

8. In view of the above, the Investigating Officer is directed to follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and follow the guidelines formulated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra)' It is needless to mention that the '(zotq t scc zll petitioners are entitled to put forth their grievance by 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

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed To //TRUE COPYII SD/- B. REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1 The Chief Judiciat Magistrate at Hyderabad. 2' The station House officer, porice station Banjara Hirs, Hyderabad District ' LTr:"?:J:J,tst?i PRosECUToR Hish court ror the state or reransana,

4. One CC to SRt. B SHANKER Advocate tOpUCl

5. Two CD Copies TPK/GNK

HIGH COURT DATED: 2410912026

ORDER

CRLP.No.15777 of 2026 CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISPOSED OF A /,' !! Zt i i.rr /(: itE ST4 t,J i :l 2 s sEP 2i26 \' .-:,- ('( _t,: .i \-- \. .1 \q 1b

.-. .:. " [Fl