logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 TSHC 003 print Preview print print
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 -
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.
 
  CDJLawJournal