Mohammed Zubair vs The State Of Telangana & Anr.

This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.182 of 2026 of WPS Rajendranagar Zone (Hyderabad), Hyderabad, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 85 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

Heard Mr.S.M.Saifullah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed the alleged offence and have been falsely implicated in the present case by making omnibus allegations against them. He further submits that the petitioner, at no point of time, harassed respondent No.2 or demanded any additional dowry. He further submits that the ingredients for the offence under Sections 85 and 351(2) of the BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act are not attracted against the petitioner and 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 submits that there are specific allegations levelled in the complaint about harassment made by the petitioner against respondent No.2. Whether the petitioner has committed the offence or not, has to be revealed during the course of investigation. He further submits that the Investigating Officer had already issued notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS to the petitioner on 11.07.2026 and the petitioner is entitled to submit his reply/explanation to the said notice. However, without submitting the same, he has straightaway approached this Court and filed the present petition, which is not maintainable under law.

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 prosecution, the Investigating Officer had already issued notice under Section 35(3) BNSS to the petitioner.

In view of the same, the petitioner is entitled to 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.