logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2025 TSHC 1400 print Preview print print
Court : High Court for the State of Telangana
Case No : Criminal Petition No.16628 of 2025
Judges: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
Parties : Gannapureddy Kavitha Reddy & Another Versus The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad through P.S. Vanasthalipuram & Anothers
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Naveen Kumar Miryala, Advocate. For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor.
Date of Judgment : 15-12-2025
Head Note :-
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 - Sections 316(2) & 318(4) r/w. 3 (5) -
Judgment :-

1. This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.1752 of 2025 on the file of Vanasthalipuram Police Station, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2, for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) r/w. 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’).

2. Heard Sri Naveen Kumar Miryala, 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 offences and they have been falsely implicated in the present crime. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the ingredients under Sections 316(2), 318(4) r/w. 3 (5) of BNS do not attract. He further submitted that as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Ors vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr ((2024) 10 SCC 690), both the offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust are independent and distinct and that the two offences cannot co-exist. Hence, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse of process of law.

4. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the offences levelled against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, and that the investigating officer will follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, as well as the guidelines formulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar ((2014) 8 SCC 273).

5. Having regard to the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the offences leveled against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment below seven years and the Investigating Officer ought to have followed the procedure by issuing notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C/Section 35(3) of BNSS.

6. It is also not in dispute that as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Delhi Race Club Ltd supra, both the offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust are independent and distinct and they cannot go together. However, taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, 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 Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar’s case supra. However, 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.

7. It is made clear that, if the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 fails to cooperate with the Investigating Officer for investigation, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to take action against them in accordance with law.

8. With the above directions, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal