Dasari Kiran Kumar vs The State Of Telangana & Anr.

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.466 of 2026 of Bachupally Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate registered for the offences punishable under Sections 125(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’) and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, ‘M.V. Act’).

Heard Mr.Pathipaka Ram Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.

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

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The allegations levelled in the complaint are purely civil in nature. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the ingredients of Section 125(a) of the BNS and Section 187 of the M.V. Act are not attracted against the petitioner. He further submits that respondent No. 2 has not sustained any injuries and he filed the present complaint with an intention to extract money from the petitioner. Respondent No.2 ought to have approached the competent Civil Court or, if he had sustained any injury, he ought to have approached the competent Tribunal for claiming compensation. Instead, respondent No. 2 has filed the present complaint by giving a criminal colour.

Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner that respondent No.2 sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. The said allegations prima facie attracts the ingredients for the offence under Section 125(a) of the BNS and Section 187 of the M.V.Act. Whether the allegations levelled in the complaint are true or not the same has to be revealed during the course of investigation especially the investigation is under progress. The petitioner is not entitled to seek quashment of the proceedings against him at this stage. However, since the offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, the Investigating Officer intends to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra).

Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that respondent No.2 in his complaint specifically mentioned that he has sustained injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. Whether the allegations levelled in the complaint are true or not the same has to be revealed during the course of investigation. The record further reveals that the offences levelled against the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment for a term of less than seven years. Even according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the Investigating Officer will follow the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and also the guidelines formulated by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra).

Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on or before 31.08.2026 and the Investigating Officer is directed 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). It is needless to mention that the petitioner is entitled to put forth his grievance, if any, upon receipt of notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, and produce all documents available with him before the Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall also cooperate with the investigation.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.