Pidugu Kanakavva & Ors. vs The State Of Telangana & Anr.

This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.932 of 2026 of Madhapur Police Station, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.2 to 4, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 69, 351(2), 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS') and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, for short (SC/ST POA Act).

Heard Mr. T.V.Ramana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Ms. Mandala Supriya, learned counsel for respondent No.2. With their consent, this criminal petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed the alleged offences and have been falsely implicated in the present crime only on the ground that petitioner No.1 is the mother, petitioner No.2 is the sister and petitioner No.3 is the brother-in-law of accused No.1 by making omnibus allegations. The petitioners have never abused respondent No.2 in the name of her caste and there was no dishonest intention on the part of the petitioners. The petitioners never threatened respondent No.2 not to call accused No.1 and therefore, the alleged offences are not attracted against the petitioners. He further submitted that the entire allegations are levelled against accused No.1 only. Even according to the allegations levelled in the complaint, accused No.1 and respondent No.2 have been in consensual relationship since 2015, and the ingredients of the alleged offences are attracted against accused No.1 only. He further submitted that accused No.1 had filed an application for grant of regular bail vide Crl.M.P.No.1017 of 2026 in Crime No.932 of 2026 before the Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. In the said application, respondent No.2 herself filed a sworn affidavit stating that she is intended to withdraw the case against accused No.1 as well as against the petitioners. Taking into consideration the averments made by respondent No.2 in the said affidavit, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to grant regular bail to accused No.1 vide order dated 03.07.2026.

Learned counsel further submitted that, even according to the allegations levelled in the complaint, the alleged marriage of accused No.1 with another woman was scheduled to be solemnized on 09.05.2026, and respondent No.2 came to know about the said marriage on 08.05.2026. However, she lodged the present complaint only on 24.06.2026, after lapse of more than 30 days. Respondent No.2 has not given any reasons, much less any cogent reasons, for the delay in lodging the complaint. Hence, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse of the process of law. He further submitted that the offences alleged against the petitioners 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 'the 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 counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently contended that the petitioners were aware of the relationship between respondent No.2 and accused No.1. Despite having knowledge of the said relationship, the petitioners fixed the marriage of accused No.1 with another woman with the dishonest intention of preventing accused No.1 from marrying respondent No.2. The petitioners abused respondent No.2 in the name of her caste and refused to perform the marriage of respondent No.2 with accused No.1 solely on the ground that respondent No.2 belongs to a Scheduled Community. The petitioners also threatened respondent No.2 not to contact them or accused No.1 and to leave accused No.1. The said allegations attract the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 351(2) and 318(4) of the BNS. She further submitted that, in Crl.M.P.No.1017 of 2026, the petitioners specifically agreed to perform the marriage of respondent No.2 with accused No.1. Taking into consideration the said promise, respondent No.2 filed a sworn affidavit in Crl.M.P.No.1017 of 2026 stating that she had no objection to granting bail to accused No.1 and that she intended to withdraw the complaint lodged against accused No.1 and the petitioners. However, after granting bail to accused No.1, the petitioners did not come forward to perform the marriage of respondent No.2 with accused No.1. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashment of the proceedings against them.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has reiterated the very same submissions. Since the offences levelled against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, the Investigating Officer wants to follow the due procedure as contemplated under the provisions of Section 35(3) of the BNSS, the petitioners shall cooperate with the investigation.

Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the allegations levelled in the complaint and the ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is a disputed facts and the same has to be revealed during the course of investigation. The specific case of respondent No.2 is that she filed a sworn affidavit in Crl.M.P.No.1017 of 2026 stating that she had no objection to granting bail to accused No.1, on the promise given by the petitioners and accused No.1 that they would perform the marriage of respondent No.2 with accused No.1. Whether respondent No.2 voluntarily filed the said sworn affidavit in Crl.M.P.No.1017 of 2026 or whether she filed the same based on the promise allegedly given by the petitioners is also a disputed question of fact, which will be revealed during the course of investigation. However, accused No.1 has already been enlarged on bail on 03.07.2026, and the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1017 of 2026 has become final. In view of the same, the ingredients of the offence under Section 69 of the BNS may not be attracted insofar as the petitioners are concerned. The other offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. Even according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the Investigating Officer wants to follow the due procedure as contemplated under the provisions of Section 35(3) of the BNSS.

In view of the same, the petitioners are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on or before 31.08.2026 and on such appearance, the Investigating Officer is 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) and the petitioners shall cooperate with the investigation. It is needless to mention that the petitioners are entitled to submit reply to the notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS by raising all the pleas which are available to them and they are also entitled to submit the documents, if any, which are in their custody, to the Investigating Officer.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.