AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.532 of 2026, Bachupally Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as the sole accused for the offence punishable under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNS').
Heard Sri K.R.Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Mr.Vidhyadhar Bhatt, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
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 against the petitioner are purely civil in nature pertaining to the monetary transaction. Respondent No.2 ought to have approached the competent Civil Court on the other hand filed the present complaint by giving criminal colour. He further submitted that the offences under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the BNS are not attracted against the petitioner and both the offences cannot go together, in view of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Ors vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr1. He further submitted that the offences leveled 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 Bihar2, is proceeding further in the matter and the same is contrary to law.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner, with a dishonest intention, received a huge amount from respondent No.2 under the guise of investment and thereafter misappropriated it. The said allegations prima facie attract the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the BNS. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings at this stage.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has reiterated the submissions made by the learned counsel for respondent No.2. He further submits that the Investigating Officer wants to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and also the guidelines formulated by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra) on the ground that the offences levelled against the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment less than years. However, the petitioner is are not coming forward to receive the notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS and not cooperating with the Investigating Officer.
By way of reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will cooperate with the Investigating Officer.
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 learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the Investigating Officer intends to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and also the guidelines formulated by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra).
In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on or before 14.08.2026 and submit reply/explanation along with the documents, which are available with him, 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.