Batthula Raj Kumar vs The State of Telangana & Santhosh Kumar Sangars

This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (for short 'the BNSS') by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.211 of 2026 of CCC Naspur Police Station, Ramagundam District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 353(1)(c), and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'the BNS').

Heard Mr. CH. Narsimha, learned counsel representing Mr. CH. Venkat Raman, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

With their consent, the criminal petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed the alleged offences and has been falsely implicated in the present crime. The petitioner, being a reporter for Ninadam Daily Newspaper, published one article that the Government Advisor Harkaru Venugopala Rao hoisted the national flag by wearing shoes. The said allegation does not attract the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 353(1)(c), and 353(2) of the BNS. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse of the process of law. He further submitted that the offences levelled against the petitioner 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 in the complaint and the said allegations attract the ingredients of the above said offences. Whether the allegations levelled in the complaint are true or not, the same will be revealed during the course of investigation. Since the investigation is under progress, the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashment of the proceedings against him at this stage. The Investigating Officer had already issued notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS to the petitioner/accused on 17.08.2026, on the ground that the offences leveled against the petitioner/accused are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years and the petitioner is entitled to submit his reply, on the other hand, filed the present criminal petition seeking to quash the proceedings, which is not permissible under law.

Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals the offences leveled against the petitioner/accused are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. Even according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the Investigating Officer had issued notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS to the petitioner on 17.08.2026.

In view of the same, the petitioner is entitled to submit a reply to the notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS dated 17.08.2026, by raising all the pleas which are available to him, and he is also entitled to submit the documents, if any, which are in his custody, to the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer is further directed to follow the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the BNSS, and also the guidelines formulated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra).

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.