Sai Mohan Gandikota and others vs State of Telangana and another

Criminal Petition No.13737 of 2026 has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 & 5 and Criminal Petition No.13825 of 2026 has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.4 seeking to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.110 of 2026 of Pangal Police Station, Wanaparthy District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNS’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the DP Act’).

Heard Mr. M.A.K. Mukheed, learned counsel representing Mr. M.A. Haroon Amjad, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. K. Venu Madhav, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence and have been falsely implicated in the present crime. Respondent No.2 voluntarily left the matrimonial house and thereafter filed the complaint against all the petitioners, by making omnibus allegations. Further, the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5 never lived with the petitioner/accused No.1 and respondent No.2. Hence, the question of harassing respondent No.2 for additional dowry does not arise. Therefore, the 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. However, the Investigating Officer, without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’), the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar^{11.(2014) 8 SCC 273.}, is proceeding with the investigation and the same is contrary to law.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that there are specific allegations levelled in the complaint against the petitioners regarding physical and mental harassment and that they had also demanded additional dowry. The said allegations attract the ingredients of the offences under Section 85 of the BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings.

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor reiterated the very same submissions. He further submitted that the dispute arises out of a matrimonial issue. However, as the imprisonment prescribed for the offences levelled against the petitioner is less than seven years, the Investigating Officer will follow the due procedure as contemplated under the provisions of Section 35(3) of the BNSS and the guidelines and principles issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra) and the petitioners have to cooperate with the investigation.

This Court considered the submissions made by the respective parties and perused of the material available on record. There is no dispute with regard to the relation of the petitioners with respondent No.2 and the dispute arising out of the matrimonial issues. The offences levelled against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment up to seven years. Even according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the Investigating Officer will follow the due procedure as contemplated under law. In view of the same, the Investigating Officer is directed to scrupulously follow the procedure contemplated under the provisions of Section 35(3) of the BNSS and the guidelines and principles issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra) and conclude the investigation. It is needless to mention that the petitioners are entitled to put forth their grievance upon receipt of the notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and raise all the grounds which are available under law, and shall also cooperate with the investigation.

With the above directions, both the Criminal Petitions are disposed of.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.