Abhi Subramanyam vs The State Of Telangana & Anr.

This criminal petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.792 of 2026 of Chandanagar Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the offence under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'the BNS').

Heard Mr. M. Janardhan Rao, learned counsel representing Mr. D. Gowri Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 State. With their consent, the criminal petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the present crime. The allegations levelled in the complaint are purely civil in nature and arise out of an agreement of sale in respect of an extent of 300 sq. yards of house plot. Respondent No.2 ought to have approached the competent Civil Court, on the other hand, filed the present complaint by giving a criminal colour. He further submitted that the offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. However, the Investigating Officer, without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS'), the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar^{11.(2014) 8 SCC 273}, is proceeding with the investigation and the same is contrary to law.

Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner in the complaint that the petitioner, with a dishonest intention from the date of inception, received the amounts from respondent No.2, but neither returned the said amount nor executed the sale deed in his favour. The said allegations prima facie attracts the ingredients of the offence under Section 318(4) of the BNS. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings at threshold. Whether the allegations in the complaint are true or not can only be revealed during the course of investigation and the investigation is under progress. He further submitted that when the Investigating Officer is trying to serve a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, the petitioner refused to receive the same and not cooperating with the investigation from the date of registration of the crime.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, by way of reply, submitted that the petitioner will cooperate with the investigation.

Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon 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. Even according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the Investigating Officer intends to follow the due procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the BNSS.

Hence, the petitioner/accused is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on or before 19.08.2026, and on such appearance, the Investigating Officer is directed to issue notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS and follow the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar supra.

It is needless to mention that the petitioner is entitled to put forth his grievance upon receipt of the notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and is also entitled to submit the documents, if any, which are in his possession.

Subject to the above directions, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.