1. This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.7 and 8 seeking to quash the Memo dated 18.08.2026 filed by the Investigating Officer/Detective Inspector of Police, Banjara Hills Police Station in F.I.R.No.1064 of 2024, before the III Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad, (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the trial Court’) arrayed the petitioners as accused and added Section 317(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNS’) in addition to the existing Sections 306 and 317(2) of the BNS.

2. Brief facts of the case:

               2.1. On 09.11.2024, at about 1500 hours, the police, Banjara Hills received a complaint from respondent No.2, wherein it is stated that one Mr. Dilip Gupta and his wife, Durga, had been working at his house as house-keeping and Servants for the past 4½ years. As respondent No.2 is a Doctor, he would visit his clinic i.e., Anu Test Tube Baby Center, Somajiguda, once or twice a month for work. Recently, 18 batteries were stolen from the said clinic and he lodged a complaint before the Panjagutta Police Station. During the course of interrogation, Dilip Gupta confessed that he stolen batteries and also gold articles from his house. On verification late in the night by his family members were found that the below mentioned gold articles had been stolen from cupboards in his house.

               1) 6 Adult Gold Bangles, each weighing 15 Grams

               2) 4 Child Gold bangles each weighing 10 Grams

               3) Gold Mangala Sutra weighing 40 Grams

               4) 1 Gold Chain weighing 90 Grams

               5) 1 Gold Chain weighing 40 Grams

               6) 2 Gold Chains Weighing in total 60 Grams

               7) 1 Gold Belt (Vadana) Weight 120 Grams

               8) 1 Gold Ring

               9) 4 Pairs of Ear Tops (Normal Type);

               Total Gold Weight Approximately 480 Grams,

Respondent No.2 requested the Station House Officer to take necessary action as per the law. Basing on the said complaint, Crime No.1064 of 2024 was registered initially for the offence under Section 306 of the BNS against Dilip Gupta/accused No.1 and his wife Durga. During the course of investigation, the statement of accused No.1 was recorded and the Investigating Officer arrayed accused Nos.2 to 6 as accused and added Section 317(2) of the BNS. Basing upon further investigation and material collected during the course of investigation, the petitioners herein were also arrayed as accused Nos.7 and 8 and added the Section of law 317(4) of the BNS in addition to the existing Sections 306 and 317(2) of the BNS and the Investigating Officer filed a Memo dated 18.08.2026 before the learned trial Court. Aggrieved by the above said Memo dated 18.08.2026, the petitioners filed the present criminal petition .

3. Heard Mr.Jalli Kanakaiah, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr.Mandala Nagendra Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. K. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 State .

4. Submissions of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners:

               4.1. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that there are no allegations, much less specific allegations, levelled against the petitioners in the Memo and they were not initially arrayed as accused in the F.I.R. and nowhere their names were mentioned either in the complaint or in the F.I.R. The petitioners have not committed any offence and have been added in the present crime, through Memo dated 18.08.2026.

               4.2. The entire allegations levelled in the complaint were against accused No.1 and his wife, and the crime was initially registered for the offence under Section 306 of the BNS. Subsequently, based on the confessional statement given by Dilip Gupta/accused No.1, accused Nos.2 to 6 were added and the offence under Section 317(2) of the BNS was also added. Basing on the confessional statement given accused No.1, the In-charge Managers of Attica Gold Pvt. Ltd. (for short, ‘Attica Gold Company), Masab Tank, Hyderabad, and Attica Gold Company, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, were added as accused Nos.4 and 5 respectively, and the other accused were added as accused Nos.2, 3 and 6.

               4.3. When the police were making efforts to arrest the petitioners on the ground that they are Directors of Attica Gold Company, the petitioners have approached the learned LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-61) seeking transit bail in the event of their arrest in connection with F.I.R.No.1064 of 2024, vide Crl.Misc.No.8592 of 2026 and the said petition was dismissed on 05.09.2026 on the ground of jurisdiction.

               4.4. Thereafter, petitioner No.1 had approached this Court and filed W.P.No.29756 of 2026 questioning the action of respondent Nos.4 and 5 therein in trying to arrest her without there being any F.I.R. When the said writ petition taken up for hearing, on 08.09.2026, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 therein, based on the oral instructions given by the concerned Officer, submitted that petitioner No.1 herein was being included as accused No.5 in the present crime and also there was an alteration of the sections in the said F.I.R., which prescribes punishment of more than seven (7) years. The learned Assistant Government Pleader sought time to get written instructions and accordingly, the matter was posted to 10.09.2026, and this Court directed the respondent police not to arrest petitioner No.1, if she was not arrayed as an accused in the F.I.R.

               4.5. Thereafter, the petitioners came to know that the prosecution had filed the impugned Memo on 18.08.2026 before the learned trial Court implicated them as accused Nos.7 and 8 and added Section 317(4) of the BNS without assigning any reasons, especially the said Memo is not maintainable under law, as it was simply stated that some other crimes were registered, without even mentioning the name of the petitioners as accused. In the said Memo, the trial Court has not passed any order. In the absence of any order of the learned trial Court, the prosecution straightaway implicated the petitioners as accused Nos.7 and 8 and altered the offence by adding Section 317(4) of the BNS.

               4.6. He further submitted that the Investigating Officer ought to have followed the procedure contemplated under Sections 173 and 176 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNSS’), on the other hand, only through Memo dated 18.08.2026, the Investigating Officer added the petitioners as accused Nos.7 and 8 and added the offence under Section 317(4) of the BNS. Hence, the impugned Memo dated 18.08.2026 is liable to be quashed.

               4.7. He further submitted that petitioner No.1 had already submitted resignation from the post of Director on 03.11.2023, and petitioner No.2 submitted her resignation as Director on 10.07.2023 in accordance with the prescribed procedure, and that their respective resignations had been accepted by the competent authority. The petitioners are not having any role with Attica Gold Company nor they given any instructions to the Managers of Attica Gold Company, branches which are situated at Hyderabad, to purchase the stolen gold either from accused No.1 or any other offenders as accused referred to in the Memo. Therefore, the petitioners have no role in connection with the present crime and they have been falsely implicated as accused solely on the basis of the confessional statement given by accused No.1, and the same is not permitted under law.

               4.8. He further submitted that the ingredients of the offences under Sections 306, 317(2) and 317(4) of the BNS are not attracted against the petitioners. He further submitted that petitioner No.1 is a pregnant woman and petitioner No.2 is suffering from Cancer. There is no incriminating material against the petitioners to connect them with the present crime. However, the petitioners are ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and submit all the documents. The Investigating Officer may be directed not to take coercive steps against the petitioners.

               4.9. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2015 SCC OnLine SC 18) .

5. Submissions of the learned counsel for respondent No.2:

               5.1. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioners are the Directors of Attica Gold Company, which has branches in Hyderabad and the said Company purchased stolen gold from accused No.1 and other offenders. During the course of investigation, accused No.1 specifically stated that he had sold the stolen gold ornaments in Attica Gold Company at Masab Tank Branch and Banjara Hills Branch. The Investigating Officer, during the course of investigation, revealed that the Attica Gold Company had been purchasing stolen gold from accused No.1 and other offenders.                5.2. He further submitted that based on the notice issued by the Investigating Officer, dated 25.11.2024, in the present crime, Attica Gold Company, on 28.11.2024 issued a reply, wherein it specifically stated that it had purchased 63.84 grams of gold ornaments from accused No.1 on 10.03.2022 and had also purchased the gold ornaments from him on 25.05.2022, 08.11.2023 and 14.03.2024.

               5.3. The petitioners were well aware that they have been arrayed as accused in the present crime, and therefore, they themselves have approached the learned XL Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru and filed Crl.Misc.No.8592 of 2026 seeking grant of anticipatory bail and the said application was dismissed on 05.09.2026. Thereafter, petitioner No.1 had approached this Court and filed W.P. No.29756 of 2026. 5.4. He further submitted that there was a conspiracy between the petitioners and their Managers, pursuant to which stolen gold ornaments were being purchased from accused No.1. The Investigating Officer filed a Memo dated 18.08.2026 bringing to the notice of the learned trial Court that the petitioners had been added as an accused and that the offence under Section 317(4) of the BNS has also been added, in addition to Sections 306 and 317(2) of the BNS, and the same is in accordance with law. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to question the Memo dated 18.08.2026 filed by the Investigating Officer .

6. Submissions of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor:

               6.1. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners are the Directors of Attica Gold Company, and the said Company had purchased stolen gold ornaments from accused No.1 and other offenders. He further submitted that four crimes have been registered against the Attica Gold Company, namely., i.e., Crime No.38 of 2026 registered at Jubilee Hills Police Station for the offence under Section 306 of the BNS, Crime No.84 of 2026 registered at Film Nagar Police Station for the offences under Sections 123 and 318(4) of the BNS, Crime No.775 of 2024 registered at Kushaiguda Police Station for the offences under Sections 331(4) and 305 of the BNS and Crime No.1366 of 2025 was registered at Hayathnagar Police Station for the offences under Sections 331(4) and 305(a) of the BNS.

               6.2. He also submitted that pursuant to the notice dated 25.11.2024, issued by the Investigating Officer, Attica Gold Company had submitted a reply on 28.11.2024, wherein it is stated that the said Company had purchased 63.84 grams of gold ornaments from accused No.1 on 10.03.2022 and had also purchased the gold ornaments from him on 25.05.2022, 08.11.2023 and 14.03.2024. Even according to the documents filed by the petitioners, prior to their resignation as Directors of Attica Gold Company, the said Company had purchased the stolen gold ornaments/gold on 10.03.2022, 12.03.2022, 25.05.2022 and as on the said dates, the petitioners were admittedly continuing as Directors of the said Company. Whether the petitioners had any role with the Attica Gold Company, and whether there was any conspiracy between the petitioners and the Managers/other employees of Attica Gold Company in purchasing stolen gold ornaments/gold from accused No.1 or any other offenders, the same will be revealed during the course of investigation, especially the investigation is under progress.

               6.3. He further submitted that upon receiving credible information regarding the involvement of the petitioners in the present crime, the Investigating Officer, with the assistance of local police at Bangalore, visited the residence of the petitioners to take the custody and producing them before the learned Magistrate. At that time, the petitioners threatened and obstructed the police personnel and resisted their efforts by gathering people around the police officials. Thereafter, the petitioners escaped from the house. At that stage, the Investigating Officer lodged a complaint before the Seshadripuram Sub-Division, Bengaluru City, pursuant to which, F.I.R.No.124 of 2026 was registered on 22.08.2026 against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 262, 221, 351(2) red with Section 3(5) of the BNS.

               6.4. He further submitted that during the course of investigation, if the Investigating Officer finds that any other person is involved in the commission of the offence, he is empowered to array such person as an accused and is also entitled to add any other offence, if the facts and circumstances so warrant. He also submitted that the Investigating Officer, in the present case, based on the material collected during the course of investigation, found that the petitioners, who are the Directors of Attica Gold Company, had a specific role in the commission of the offence and accordingly, they were added as an accused and also added Section 317(4) of the BNS in addition to the existing Sections 306 and 317(2) of the BNS. The said information was submitted by way of a Memo before the learned trial Court for the purpose of placing the same on record and bringing it to the notice of the Court, and the same is in accordance with law. It is further submitted that insofar as the investigation relates to a non-cognizable offence, the Investigating Officer is required to obtain prior permission from the concerned Court to conduct investigation. However, no such prior permission is required for conducting investigation into cognizable offences. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled to seek the relief sought in the present criminal petition.

Analysis:

7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 09.11.2024, wherein it was stated that accused No.1 and his wife, Durga, have been working at his house as house-keeping and servants for the past 4½ years. As respondent No.2 is a Doctor, he would visit his clinic, Anu Test Tube Baby Center, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, once or twice a month for work. Recently, 18 batteries were stolen from the said clinic and he lodged a complaint before the Panjagutta Police Station. During the course of interrogation, accused No.1 had confessed that he stolen batteries and also gold articles from the house of respondent No.2. It is further stated that on verification by his family members late in the night, approximately 480 grams of gold articles had been stolen from the house of respondent No.2 i.e., 1) 6 Adult Gold Bangles, each weighing 15 Grams 2) 4 Child Gold bangles each weighing 10 Grams 3) Gold Mangala Sutra weighing 40 Grams 4) 1 Gold Chain weighing 90 Grams 5) 1 Gold Chain weighing 40 Grams 6) 2 Gold Chains Weighing in total 60 Grams 7) 1 Gold Belt (Vadana) Weight 120 Grams 8) 1 Gold Ring 9) 4 Pairs of Ear Tops (Normal Type). Basing on the said complaint, Crime No.1064 of 2024 was registered for the offence under Section 306 of the BNS against accused No.1 and his wife Durga. Subsequently, accused No.1 was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Based on the material collected during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer added accused No.2 to 6 and also added Section 317(2) of the BNS. During the further course of investigation, the Investigating Officer revealed that accused No.1 had sold the stolen gold to Attica Gold Company at Masab Tank and Banjara Hills branches. Accused No.1 in his statement specifically stated that he sold stolen gold ornaments in the months of March and April, 2022 to Attica Gold Company of Masab Tank Branch and Banjara Hills Branch. The petitioners are the Directors of Attica Gold Company, and their involvement was also found in connection with Crime No.1064 of 2024 and they were added as accused. The Investigating Officer filed a Memo dated 18.08.2026 before the learned trial Court by adding the petitioners as an accused Nos.7 and 8 and also adding the offence under Section 317(4) of the BNS to the existing Sections 306 and 317(2) of the BNS .

8. A perusal of the said Memo reveals that Attica Gold Company had purchased the stolen gold ornaments from accused No.1 and other offenders, who were involved in the offences of stealing gold ornaments. The said Memo further reveals that four crimes have been registered against the Attica Gold Company, viz., (i) Crime No.38 of 2026 registered at Jubilee Hills Police Station for the offence under Section 306 of the BNS, (ii) Crime No.84 of 2026 registered at Film Nagar Police Station for the offences under Sections 123 and 318(4) of the BNS, (iii) Crime No.775 of 2024 registered at Kushaiguda Police Station for the offences under Sections 331(4) and 305 of the BNS; and (iv) Crime No.1366 of 2025 was registered at Hayathnagar Police Station for the offences under Sections 331(4) and 305(a) of the BNS .

9. The specific case of the prosecution is that the petitioners, being the Directors of Attica Gold Company at Masab Tank and Banjara Hills Branches, and in the said Branches, without proper verification, they purchased the ornaments/gold from accused No.1 and other offenders, despite having knowledge that the ornaments/gold purchased by them was stolen property. Even as per the documents enclosed along with the present criminal petition, Attica Gold Company had issued a reply, dated 28.11.2024, to the notice dated 25.11.2024 issued by the Investigating Officer, wherein it was revealed that the said Company had purchased gold ornaments from accused No.1 on 10.03.2022, 25.05.2022, 08.11.2023 and 14.03.2024 and the petitioners are Directors of the said Company as on the said dates. Whether there was any conspiracy between the petitioners and the Managers of the Attica Gold Company branches situated at Hyderabad, and they are having knowledge about purchase of the stolen gold from accused No.1 and other offenders, or any other material is there to connect the petitioners with the present case, the same will be revealed during the course of investigation, especially the investigation is under progress.

10. Insofar as the other contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel that the Investigating Officer, through the impugned Memo, arrayed the petitioners as an accused and added Section 317(4) of the BNS without following the mandatory procedure as contemplated under Section 173 and 176 of the BNSS is not tenable under law on the ground that Crime No.1064 of 2024 was initially registered for the offence under Section 306 of the BNS against accused No.1 and his wife and subsequently, during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer found that other persons were also involved in the commission of the offence and based on the material collected during the course of investigation, as well as the confessional statement of accused No.1, accused Nos.2 to 6 were arrayed as accused and Section 317(2) of the BNS was also added. Subsequently, based on the material collected during the further course of investigation, the Investigating Officer found that the petitioners, who are the Directors of Attica Gold Company, were also involved in the commission of the offence and accordingly, the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.7 and 8 and Section 317(4) of the BNS was added to the existing Sections 306 and 317(2) of the BNS.

11. It is relevant to mention that the offence under Section 317(4) of the BNS is a cognizable offence. In respect of a cognizable offence, the Investigating Officer is empowered to conduct an investigation without obtaining prior permission from the concerned Court. The Investigating Officer has to obtain prior permission to conduct investigation in respect of non-cognizable offences only. Hence, the contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that in the absence of any prior permission from the learned Magistrate, the Investigating Officer straightaway added Section 317(4) of the BNS to the existing Sections 306 and 317(2) of the BNS and also arrayed the petitioners as an accused and the same is contrary to the provisions of Sections 173 and 176 of the BNSS, is not tenable under law. The impugned Memo reveals that the Investigating Officer brought to the notice of the learned trial Court about the factum of arraying the petitioners as an accused and also adding Section 317(4) of the BNS in addition to the Sections 306 and 317(2) of the BNS.

12. In Sunil Bhati Mittal (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the directing mind and will doctrine provide that a company, being an artificial legal person, acts through its directors and managers who constitute its directing mind and will. Where such directors or managers exercise the controlling authority of the company, their state of mind, knowledge, intention and guilty mind (mens rea) are treated in law as those of the company itself. Consequently, where a criminal offence requires a guilty mind, the mens rea of the directors or managers acting as the company’s directing mind may be attributed to the company, thereby making the company criminally liable for the offence.

13. The judgment relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case on the ground that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioners that they are Directors of Attica Gold Company and the said Company is having branches at Hyderabad and accused No.1 sold the stolen gold ornaments to Attica Gold Company at Masab Tank and Jubilee Hills Branches and the petitioners are having specific role in the day-to-day business activities of Attica Gold Company and the said Company purchased the stolen gold from accused No.1 and other offenders, without proper verification of the persons and that four crimes have been registered against the said Company.

14. It is already submitted supra that after registration of F.I.R., if during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer comes to the conclusion that any other person is involved in the commission of the offences, the Investigation Officer is having power to array such person or persons as an accused and is also having power to add the appropriate Section of Law. In respect of non-cognizable offences, the Investigating Officer can conduct an investigation only after obtaining necessary permission from competent Court. In respect of cognizable offences, the Investigating Officer is empowered to conduct investigation. In the present case, the offence under Section 317(4) of the BNS is a cognizable offence and based upon the material which was collected during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer found the involvement of the petitioners as Executive Directors and whole time Directors of Attica Gold Company in the commission of the offence and consequently, they were arrayed as accused Nos.7 and 8 and also added Section 317(4) of the BNS. The Investigating Officer thereafter filed a Memo dated 18.08.2026, before the learned trial Court for the purpose of placing the above said facts on record. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that there is no illegality, irregularity or legal infirmity in the said Memo and to quash the same while exercising the powers conferred under Section 528 of the BNSS.

15. In respect of the other submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners are ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and they will produce the documents, which are in their possession and requested this Court to grant necessary protection and direct the Investigating Officer not to take coercive steps against them is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and others ((2021) 19 SCC 401) and Sanjay Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1170), held that the Court cannot grant a blanket order of “no coercive steps” or “not to arrest”, as such protection is in the nature of anticipatory bail, which must be sought before the competent Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C., and granting such relief while refusing to quash the F.I.R. is wholly impermissible. In view of the said principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief of protection as sought by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners.

16. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any illegality, irregularity or legal infirmity in the impugned Memo dated 18.08.2026 filed by the Investigating Officer before the learned trial Court.

17. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.