Porika Jalender Naik vs The State Of Telangana & Anr.

This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.83 of 2026, Warangal WPS (Warangal), Warangal District, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 82(1), 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'DP Act').

Heard Mr.N.Vishnuvardhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Respondent No.2 herself left the matrimonial home in the year 2022, and since then, she has been living separately. The petitioner never harassed respondent No.2 for additional dowry, as alleged in the complaint. However, respondent No.2 filed the present complaint after a lapse of four years by making omnibus allegations. He further submits that the petitioner had already approached the learned Family Judge (II Additional District Judge) at Warangal and filed F.C.O.P. No.52 of 2022. However, the said F.C.O.P. was dismissed for default on 23.10.2024, and the petitioner is taking necessary steps in that regard. He further submits that the ingredients for the offence under Sections 85, 82(1), 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 earned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there are specific allegations levelled in the complaint against the petitioner regarding the harassment made by him demanding additional dowry, and his alleged relationship with another woman without obtaining a decree of divorce from respondent No.2. The said woman has also been arrayed as accused No.2. Whether the allegations levelled in the complaint are true or not, the same will be revealed during the course of investigation. He further submits that the Investigating Officer has already recorded the statements of L.Ws.1 to 7. He further submits that the Investigating Officer issued a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS to accused No.2 on 16.07.2026. He further submits that the Investigating Officer intends to follow the same procedure in respect of the petitioner. However, the petitioner is avoiding to receive the notice and is cooperating with the investigation since the date of registration of the crime.

By way of reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will cooperate with the investigation.

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) of the BNSS to accused No.2 on 16.07.2026.

In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on or before 08.08.2026 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.