AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.895 of 2026 of Rajendranagar Police Station, Hyderabad, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNS').
Heard Mr Anshul Agarwal, 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 only on the ground that he had provided a financial loan to accused No.1, who is none other than the son of respondent No.2. There is no conspiracy between the petitioner and accused No.1 and there is no dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner. He further submits that the offences under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”) are not attracted against the petitioners 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 submits 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 Bihar2, 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 in the complaint that the property belongs to respondent No.2. Accused No.1, by making a false promise, obtained the property documents and availed a loan, assuring respondent No.2 that he would return the documents within a period of one week. When respondent No.2 demanded the return of the documents, she came to know that accused No.1 had availed a financial loan by mortgaging the property documents belonging to respondent No.2 with the petitioner. Whether the allegations are true or not will be revealed during the course of investigation. He further submits that the investigation is at the threshold and, at this stage, the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings. However, 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) on the ground that the offences levelled against the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment less than years.
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 same, 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) against the petitioner and the petitioner is entitled to submit reply/explanation along with the documents, which are available with him, to the Investigating Officer.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.