Aarthi Kumari @ Arthi Kumari vs The State Of Telangana & Anr.

This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.145 of 2026 of Central Crime Station, Hyderabad, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.2 for the offences punishable under Section 318(4) r/w 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS').

Heard Mr.Manjusha Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated in the present case solely on the ground that she is the wife of accused No.1. He further submitted that the entire allegations are levelled only against accused No.1. He further submitted that there was no conspiracy between the petitioner and accused No.1, and the petitioner had no dishonest intention. He further submitted that the ingredients for the offence under Section 318(4) r/w 61(2) of the BNS are not attracted against the petitioner and 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^{11.(2014) 8 SCC 273}, is proceeding further in the matter and the same is contrary to law.

Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner in the complaint that the petitioner and accused No.1, with a dishonest intention, received huge amount from respondent No.2 under the guise of investment. When respondent No.2 demanded refund of the said amount, the petitioner and accused No.1 failed to refund the same. Whether the allegations levelled against the petitioner are true or not will be revealed during the course of investigation. He further submitted that the Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of 13 witnesses and the investigation is still in progress. At this stage, the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings. However, as the offences levelled against the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment less than seven years, the Investigating Officer has already issued notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS to the petitioner on 28.07.2026 and the petitioner is entitled to submit her reply/explanation to the said notice. However, without submitting the same, she has straightaway approached this Court and filed the present petition, which is not maintainable under law.

Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the offences levelled against the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. Even according to the prosecution, the Investigating Officer had already issued notice under Section 35(3) BNSS to the petitioner.

In view of the same, the petitioner is entitled to submit reply/explanation along with the documents, which are available with her, to the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer is entitled to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and follow the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra).

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.