| |
CDJ 2026 TSHC 008
|
| Court : High Court for the State of Telangana |
| Case No : Criminal Petition No. 17443 of 2025 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO |
| Parties : Jokkoju Veerabrahma Chary & Others Versus The State of Telangana, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad & Another |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: N. Prathap Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor. |
| Date of Judgment : 23-12-2025 |
| Head Note :- |
| Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 - Section 156 (3) - |
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Sections 120b, 419, 468, 471, 417 and 420 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 156 (3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023
- Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C.
- Section 35(3) of the BNSS
2. Catch Words:
Not mentioned.
3. Summary:
The petition seeks quashing of FIR No.298 of 2025 alleging offences under the IPC and BNSS. Petitioners claim the allegations are civil in nature and already pending before a civil court, arguing abuse of process. The State contends that specific allegations in a private complaint warrant investigation. The Court notes the offences carry imprisonment of less than seven years and directs the investigating officer to issue notice under Section 41‑A Cr.P.C./Section 35(3) BNSS, following Arnesh Kumar guidelines. Petitioners must cooperate and may submit explanations. Failure to cooperate may attract legal action. The petition is disposed of subject to these directions.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed |
| Judgment :- |
|
1. This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.298 of 2025, on the file of the AJ Mills Colony Police Station, Warangal District, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.1, 3 and 4, for the offences punishable under Sections 120b, 419, 468, 471, 417 and 420 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 156 (3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023.
2. Heard Smt.P.Vijay Lakshmi, 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 submits that the petitioners have not committed the alleged offences and that they have been falsely implicated in the present crime. The allegations made in the complaint are purely civil in nature. The parties have already approached the competent civil court and filed O.S.No.417 of 2012, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. While the said civil suit is pending, respondent No.2 filed a private complaint implicating the petitioners as accused by making omnibus allegations. Hence, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners amounts to a clear abuse of the process of law.
4. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have made specific allegations in the private complaint and that the learned Magistrate has referred the matter for investigation to ascertain whether the petitioners have committed the offences or not. On this basis, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of the crime at the threshold.
5. Having considered the rival submissions made 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 an imprisonment of less than seven years. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the Investigating Officer ought to have followed the procedure as contemplated under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C./Section 35(3) of the BNSS, and the guidelines formulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar ((2014) 8 SCC 273).
6. In view of the same, the Investigating Officer is directed to issue notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C./Section 35(3) of BNSS and follow the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar’s case supra and the petitioners are directed to cooperate with the investigation.
7. 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.
8. It is made clear that, if the petitioners fails to cooperate with the Investigating Officer for investigation, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to take action against them in accordance with law. 9. Subject to the above directions, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
|
| |
