| |
CDJ 2026 TSHC 006
|
| Court : High Court for the State of Telangana |
| Case No : Criminal Petition No. 17042 of 2025 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO |
| Parties : Akella Veerabhadra Kumar & Others Versus The State of Telangana, Through Station House Officer, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad & Another |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: P. Nagendra Reddy, Advocate. For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor. |
| Date of Judgment : 18-12-2025 |
| Head Note :- |
| Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 & 120-b - |
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-b of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C.
- Section 35(3) of the BNSS
2. Catch Words:
- Quash
- Abuse of Process
3. Summary:
The petition seeks to quash FIR No.146 of 2025 alleging offences under IPC sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120‑b. Petitioners contend they are falsely implicated and that the matter is civil in nature, lacking specific allegations to attract Section 467. The prosecution argues that the investigation must proceed. The Court finds no specific allegation to satisfy Section 467 and notes the other offences carry imprisonment of less than seven years. Accordingly, petitioners are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer by 31‑12‑2025, with the officer empowered to issue notice under Section 41‑A Cr.P.C./Section 35(3) BNSS per Arnesh Kumar guidelines. Failure to appear will invite appropriate action. The petition is thereafter disposed of, and any pending applications are closed.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed |
| Judgment :- |
|
1. This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.146 of 2025, on the file of the Kharkhana Police Station, Rachakonda, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 3, for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-b of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Heard Mr.P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed the alleged offences and have been falsely implicated in the present crime, and they have not created any forged documents. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the document in question is only an agreement of sale. On the basis of the agreement of sale, the petitioners are not claiming any ownership, title, or rights over the property, and the allegations are purely civil in nature. Hence, the ingredients of the alleged offences are not attracted against the petitioners, and the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse of the process of law.
4. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners and whether the petitioners have committed the offences or not has to be revealed during the course of investigation and petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of proceedings.
5. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, including the allegations made in the complaint, it reveals that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners to attract the ingredients of Section 467 of the IPC.
6. Hence, this Court is of the prima facie view that ingredients of Section 467 of the IPC are not attracted against the petitioners and the other offences levelled against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years.
7. In view of the same, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer, on or before 31.12.2025, and on such appearance, the Investigating Officer is entitled to issue notice under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C./Section 35(3) of the BNSS and follow the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar ((2014) 8 SCC 273).
8. It is made clear that the petitioners are entitled to submit reply/explanation along with the documents, which are available with them, to the Investigating Officer.
9. If the petitioners fail to appear before the Investigating Officer, within the stipulated time, the Investigating Officer is entitled to take action against them in accordance with law.
10. Subject to the above directions, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
|
| |
