1. This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner, who was arrayed as accused No.2 in F.I.R., and in the remand report he was shown as accused No.6, seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.19 of 2026 of Yadagirigutta Police Station, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District, for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 316(5), 344, 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNS’) and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000-2008 (for short ‘the IT Act’).

2. Heard Mr.Brahmadandi Ramesh, learned Senior Counsel, representing Mr.Ganesh Vara Prasad Jakkula, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of respondents.

3. Brief facts of the case:

               On 13.01.2026, respondent No.2-Tahasildar, Yadagirigutta, has given a written complaint vide Lr.No.B/47/2026, in which he has stated that, while verifying a list of 240 cases regarding deficit stamp duty paid in Bhu Bharati registration transactions in Yadagirigutta Mandal, he was examined the stamp duty and other charges paid by the persons concerned in Yadagirigutta Mandal; and noted that in 15 cases i.e. serial Nos.220 to 234, registrations were done, in five (5) cases i.e. 213 to 217 correct documents, (2) serial Nos.218 and 219 AGPA documents and in the remaining 212 cases, total amount payable was Rs. 74,75,868/-, whereas only Rs.2,77,482/- was paid, due to which a deficit amount of Rs.71,98,386 has been identified and the details are mentioned below:

               

               Basing upon the said complaint, an F.I.R has been filed for the aforementioned offences.

4. Submissions of the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner:

               4.1 Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he was falsely implicated in this crime. The entire allegations are levelled against the other accused and the ingredients of the offences under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 316(5), 344, 340(2) of the BNS and Section 66(D) of the IT Act are not attracted against the petitioner. The petitioner was roped into the present crime only on the ground that he assisted accused No.3. The petitioner has not received any amount from accused No.3 or any other person and has been falsely implicated solely on the basis of a user ID (9866350380) associated with six cases of alleged deficit stamp duty. The petitioner is a daily wage employee and assisted accused No.3, who is a document writer, and there are no specific overt acts attributed against him. Hence, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse of the process of law.

5. Submissions of learned Additional Public Prosecutor:

               5.1 Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that during the course of investigation, it is revealed that the petitioner has submitted Document Nos. 854, 859, 1126 and 1273 of 2025 for registration and he has to pay the registration charges at Rs.16,075/-, Rs.62,850/-, Rs.48,076/- and Rs.1,65,311/-, in total Rs.2,92,312/-, however, he paid an amount of Rs.1,250/-, Rs.1,270/-, Rs.1,937/- and Rs.1,653/-, in total of Rs.6,110/- and he submitted the documents along with manipulated challans as if he paid full payments i.e. Rs.16,075/-, Rs.62,850/-, Rs.48,076/- and Rs.1,65,311/-, in the system, for registration. He further submitted that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner and the same attract the ingredients of the offences levelled against him, especially investigation is pending and the petitioner is not entitled to seek for quashing of the proceedings.

Analysis:

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner that he had submitted three document Nos.854, 859, 1126 and 1273 of 2025 for registration before registering authority and the said documents require registration charges to an amount of Rs.16,075/-, Rs.62,850/-, Rs.48,076/- and Rs.1,65,311/-, in total Rs.2,92,312/-, however, he paid an amount of Rs.1,250/-, Rs.1,270/-, Rs.1,937/- and Rs.1,653/-, in total of Rs.6,110/- and he had enclosed the fake challans as if he paid the full amounts and also there is a specific allegation against the petitioner that he had paid the amounts by using his user id. Whether the above said allegations made against the petitioner are true or not, has to be revealed during the course of investigation, especially investigation is under progress and the same cannot be adjudicated and decided in the proceedings under Section 528 of BNSS.

7. It is relevant to mention that in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), the Hon’ble Supreme Court delineated the limited scope of the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings, holding that such power may be exercised only in exceptional cases where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose any offence, are inherently improbable, legally barred, or manifestly mala fide, while cautioning that the categories so enumerated are illustrative and the power must be exercised sparingly. The said principles were reiterated in Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra ((2021) 19 SCC 401), wherein it was emphasised that the police have a statutory right and duty to investigate cognizable offences and that Courts should not interdict investigation at the threshold unless no cognizable offence is disclosed on a plain reading of the FIR; the FIR is not expected to be an encyclopedia of all facts, and criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at their nascent stage. In the present case, the allegations made in the complaint prima facie disclose cognizable offences, and as the investigation is still in progress. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to seek for quashing of the proceedings at the threshold.

8. For the foregoing reasons as well as the precedent decisions supra, this Court does not find any ground to quash the proceedings in Crime No.19 of 2026 of Yadagirigutta P.S. against the petitioner.

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.