Sri. Mohammed Sadiq Ahmed Siddiqi & Anr. vs The State Of Telangana & Anr.

This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.207 of 2026 of Nandigama Police Station, Future City, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 329(3), 324(4), 351(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS').

Heard Mr. Mohammed Adnan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Mr. Kushal Agarwal, 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. The nature of allegations levelled in the complaint are purely civil in nature in respect of agricultural land to an extent of Ac.1-07 guntas in Survey No.1953/A/2 situated at Nandigama Village and Mandal, Rangareddy District. Respondent No.2 ought to have approached a competent Civil Court, on the other hand filed the present complaint by giving it a criminal colour. The petitioners are claiming rights over the property purchased through registered Sale Deed. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 themselves demolished the boundary wall. Therefore, the question of the petitioners trespassing the property of respondent No.2, as alleged in the complaint, does not arise. 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 contended that the petitioners, without having any right, title or interest over the subject property, trespassed into the property of respondent No.2 and made unauthorized construction of the boundary wall. Hence, the said allegations prima facie attracts the ingredients of the above said offences. Whether the allegations made against the petitioners are true or not, the same has to be revealed during the course of investigation, especially the investigation is under progress and the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings at threshold.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also reiterated the very same submissions made by the learned counsel for respondent No.2. However, the offences levelled against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, when the Investigating Officer is trying to follow the due procedure as contemplated under the provisions of Section 35(3) of the BNSS, the petitioners are evading the receipt of notice and not cooperating with the investigation.

Learned counsel for the petitioners by way of reply submitted that the petitioners will 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 are matrimonial issues and the offences levelled 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.