AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
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.195 of 2026 of Shabad Police Station, Future City, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 351(2), 352, 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNS’) and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(Va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (for short ‘SC/ST Act’).
Heard Mr. G. Gnana Raghav, learned counsel representing Mr. Pudota Harshith, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr. Sashibhushan Siddavaram, 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 submitted that the petitioner has not committed the alleged offences and has been falsely implicated in the present crime. Even according to the allegations levelled in the complaint, the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 351(2), 352, 115(2) of the BNS and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), and 3(2)(Va) of the SC/ST act are not attracted against the petitioner. There are no allegations much less the specific allegations, in the complaint that the petitioner abused respondent No.2 in the name of her caste. Respondent No.2 has not made any allegation in the complaint that the petitioner abused her in the name of her caste nor has she mentioned the words used by the petitioner while allegedly abusing her. The alleged incident took place on 02.05.2026 at 21.30 hours, whereas respondent No.2 lodged the complaint on 11.05.2026, after a lapse of nearly nine days, without assigning any reasons for the delay. Respondent No.2 implicated the petitioner as an accused only due to political rivalry between the petitioner and the husband of respondent No.2 and lodged the present complaint only to resolve the said disputes by making omnibus allegations. 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 Bihar1, is proceeding further in the matter and the same is contrary to law. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.4733 of 2026 dated 09.04.2026.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 submitted that there are specific allegations levelled in the complaint about the abuse made against respondent No.2, which was within public view, and that the allegations levelled in the complaint attract the above said offences. Merely because the words used by the petitioner while allegedly abusing respondent No.2 in the name of her caste have not been mentioned is not a ground to seek quashment of the proceedings, especially when the petitioner had approached this Court and filed Crl.P.No.9014 of 2026 seeking grant of anticipatory bail, and the said criminal petition was dismissed on 24.06.2026 by recording cogent reasons. If any order is passed in favour of the petitioner in the present criminal petition, it would amounts to reviewing the order dated 24.06.2026 passed by this Court. The grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner have to be revealed during the course of investigation and the investigation is very much required. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the orders passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.7360 of 2026 dated 23.06.2026 and also the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra2,
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner had already approached this Court and filed anticipatory bail and the same was dismissed on 24.06.2026 and there are specific allegations levelled in the complaint and the said allegations prima facie disclose the cognizable offences. 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 29.06.2026, 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 that the petitioner had approached this Court and filed an anticipatory bail petition vide Crl.P.No.9014 of 2026, which was dismissed on 24.06.2026. During the course of hearing, learned Additional Public Prosecutor had placed a copy of the written instructions dated 20.07.2026, furnished by the concerned officer, wherein it is revealed that the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of LW-1 and the investigation is under progress. After dismissal of the aforesaid anticipatory bail petition, the Investigating Officer had issued notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS to the petitioner on 29.06.2026, and a copy of the said notice was also enclosed along with the written instructions.
This Court is not inclined to deal with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent No.2, on the ground that the Investigating Officer had already served notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS to the petitioner.
Hence, the petitioner is entitled to submit a reply to the notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS dated 29.06.2026, 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.