Telangana High Court
CRLP/15592/2026 of P.Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana, on 23 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 15592 OF 2026 Between: 1. P.Srinivas, S/o Balaguruvaiah, Aged about 48 years, Occ- Business F/o
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 15592 OF 2026
Between:
1. P.Srinivas, S/o Balaguruvaiah, Aged about 48 years, Occ- Business F/o Flat No.304, Sri Sai Mitra Enclave, P and T Colony, Dilsuknagar, Hyderabad
2. K.Sunil Kumar, s/o K Srinivas Rao, Aged about 61 years, Occ- Retired Medical Representative Rl/o Flat No. 301, Sri Sai Mitra Enclave, P and T
Colony, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad.
... PETITION ERS/ACCUSED
AND
'1 . The State of Telangana,, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad.
2. Smt.Kavita Yada,, Wo Srinivas, H.No.14-58/59/60, Flat No.502, Sri Sai Mitra Enclave, P and T Colony, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad-S00 060.
...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS
Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in FIR No.889/2026 dt.23.8.2026 offences under Section-79, 351(2) r/w 3(5) of BNS on the file of Saroornagar Police Station, Malkajgiri District.
l.A. NO: 2OF 2026
Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in pursuant to the proceedings in FIR
No.889/2026 d1.23.8.2026 on the file of Saroornagar Police Station, Malkaigiri District including appearance of the petitioners pending disposal of the above criminal petition.
This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K SHANKAR
RAO, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the Addl. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared on behalf of the Respondent No.2.
The Court made the following: ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT FORTHE STATE OF TELAN GANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE }IONOLRABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SRI,ENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.15592 of 2026
CNR No. : HBHC010653852026
Date:23.09.2026
Between
P.Srinivas and another
... Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana and another.
. .Respondents
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This Criminal Petition has been filed bv the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.889 of 2026 of Saroornagar Police Station, N{alkajgiri Commissionerate, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 79,351(2) r/w 3(5) ofthe Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 (for short 'BNS')
2. Heard Mr.K.Shankar Rao, leamed counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1 .
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not committed the alleged offence and have been falsely implicated in the present case. The petitioners hale neither entered into the plot of respondent No.2 nor abused her' Respondent No.2 filed the present complaint only with an intention to harass the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners are plot owners in the very same apartment and that there are earlier disputes between them. To resolve the said disputes, respondent No.2 frled the complaint by giving a criminal colour to the dispute' He further submits that respondent No.2 has not mentioned the words aliegedly used by the petitioners so as to attract the ingredients of the offences under Sections 79 and 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the BNS. He further submitted that the offences levelled against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. The Investigating Offrcer, without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') and without following the guidelines formulated by the Hon'b1e Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihart, is proceeding further in the matter and the same is contrary to law'
4. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there are speciftc allegations levelled against the petitioners to attract the ingredietns for the offence under sections 79 and35l(2) L(2014) 8 scc 273
read with Section 3(5) of the BNS. Whether the allegations leveled against the petitioners are true or not, will be revealed during the course of investigation. He further submits that the offences levelled against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment less than years and the Investigating Officer had already issued notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS to the petitioners and the petitioners are entitled to submit their reply/explanation to the said notice. Horvever, without submitting the thev have straightaway approached this Court and filed the plesent petition, which is not maintainable under law
5. Having considered the rival submissions rnade by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the offences levelled against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. Even according to the prosecution, the lnvestigating Officer had already issued notice under Section 35(3) BNSS to the petitioners
6. In view of the same, the petitioners are entitled to put forth their grievance to the notice issued under Section 35(3) BNSS and also entitled to submit reply/explanation along with the documents, which are available with them, to the lnvestigating Officer. The same Investigating Officer is entitled to follow the pfocedure contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and follow the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra).
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed SD/- K. BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, sEcTI2r( OFFTCER l The Special Judicial Magistrate of First class (Excise) cum Mr V.Jithender Rao Addl. Junior Civil Judge cum V Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Rangareddy District at LB Nagar.
2. The Station House Officer, Saroornagar police Station, Malkajgiri District.
3. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]
4. One CC to SRl. K SHANKAR RAO Advocate tOpUCI
5. Two CD Copies M- TPK/GNK
HIGH COURT DATED: 2310912026
ORDER
CRLP.No.15592 ot 2026 CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISPOSED OF on 1HE S14 16: 2 s sEP 2[26 ( {l It? \..- (I -\ .1 (;( Dfl\ \ lL. A $ t/