| |
CDJ 2026 TSHC 003
|
| Court : High Court for the State of Telangana |
| Case No : Criminal Petition No. 16898 of 2025 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO |
| Parties : Pammi Kranthi Kumar Versus The State of Telangana, Through P.S. Bachupally, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad & Another |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Nageshwar Rao Pujari, Advocate. For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor. |
| Date of Judgment : 17-12-2025 |
| Head Note :- |
| Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 - Section 85 - |
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023
- Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C.
- Section 35(3) of the BNSS
2. Catch Words:
Quash, Investigation Procedure, Section 41‑A, Section 35(3), Arnesh Kumar Guidelines, imprisonment less than seven years
3. Summary:
The petitioner filed a criminal petition seeking to quash FIR No. 1219 of 2025 under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023. Counsel argued that the petitioner was falsely implicated and that the offence carried a sentence of less than seven years, requiring compliance with Section 41‑A of the Cr.P.C. and Section 35(3) of the BNSS as per Arnesh Kumar guidelines. The prosecution contended that the investigating officer would follow due procedure. The Court held that the offence indeed attracted imprisonment of less than seven years and therefore the investigating officer must issue a notice under the said provisions and follow the Arnesh Kumar guidelines. The petitioner was directed to appear before the investigating officer by 31‑12‑2025 and submit explanations. Failure to appear would invite legal action. The petition was thereafter disposed of.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed |
| Judgment :- |
|
1. This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.1219 of 2025, on the file of the Bachupally Police Station, Cyberabad, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as accused, for the offence punishable under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023.
2. Heard Ms.N.Geetha, learned counsel representing Mr.Nageshear Rao Pujari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed the alleged offences and has been falsely implicated in the present crime. She further submitted that the offence levelled against the petitioner is punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years and the Investigating Officer without following due procedure as contemplated under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C./Section 35(3) of the BNSS and guidelines formulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar ((2014) 8 SCC 273), is proceeding further.
4. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the Investigating Officer will follow the due procedure as contemplated under law.
5. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the offence levelled against the petitioner is punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the Investigating Officer ought to have followed the procedure contemplated under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C./Section 35(3) of the BNSS and guidelines formulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar supra.
6. In view of the same, the petitioner/accused is 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 supra.
7. It is made clear that the petitioner is entitled to submit reply/explanation along with the documents, which are available with him, to the Investigating Officer.
8. If the petitioner fails to appear before the Investigating Officer, within the stipulated time, the Investigating Officer is entitled to take action against him in accordance with law.
9. Subject to the above directions, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
|
| |
