1. This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.186 of 2026 of Mokila Police Station, Future City, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2, for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’).

2. Heard Mr. Suresh Shivsagar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Mr. B. Ravindra Babu, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. With their consent, 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 case. Even according to the allegations levelled in the complaint, the ingredients of the offences under Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 351(2) of the BNS are not attracted. He further submitted that petitioner No.1 is discharging his duties as Assistant General Manager (Projects) in respondent No.2 company i.e., Pragati Group of Companies, and he received amounts from the customers in his individual capacity and not misappropriated any amount of respondent No.2 company as alleged. He also submitted that at the instance of respondent No.2, petitioner No.1 appeared before the SHO, Mokila Police Station on 13.04.2026, and the police forcibly obtained undertaking that he misused a tune of Rs.1,56,00,976/- and he will pay Rs.20,00,000/- within a period of one week from the date of the said undertaking. The petitioners never misappropriated any amount as alleged in the complaint. Hence, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse of the process of law. He further submitted that the offences levelled against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. The Investigating Officer, 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’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar ((2014) 8 SCC 273), is proceeding further in the matter and the same is contrary to law.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently contended that the petitioners, with a dishonest intention, collected huge amounts from the customers of respondent No.2 and misused the said amount for their personal use. The customers paid the amounts to the petitioners towards villas. The said allegation attracts the ingredients of the offences levelled against the petitioners and the petitioners are not entitled to seek any relief much less the relief sought in the present criminal petition.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioners. Whether the allegations levelled against the petitioners are true or not, the same has to be revealed during the course of investigation, especially, the investigation is under progress and the petitioners are not cooperating with the investigation. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings at the threshold. However, as the offences levelled against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, the Investigating Officer will follow the due procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the BNSS.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners by way of reply submitted that the petitioners will cooperate with the investigation.

8. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that that the offences levelled against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. Even according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the Investigating Officer will follow the due procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the BNSS.

9. Insofar as the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the police officials obtained the undertaking by pressurizing petitioner No.1, this Court is not inclined to deal with the said issue, as the scope of the present criminal petition is limited.

10. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, and submission made by the respect parties, the petitioners are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on or before 06.05.2026 and on such appearance, the Investigating Officer is directed to follow the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the BNSS, and also the guidelines formulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra) and the petitioners shall cooperate with the investigation. It is needless to mention that the petitioners are entitled to submit reply to the notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS 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.

11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.