Syed Imran Ali vs The State Of Telangana & Anr.

This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.619 of 2026 of Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as accused, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 110, and 125(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS'), Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short MV Act), and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (for short (PDPP Act).

Heard Mr. M. V. Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondents. With their consent, this criminal petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Even according to the allegations levelled in the complaint, the ingredients of the offences under Sections 110 and 125(a) of the BNS, Section 184 of the M.V.Act and Section 3 of the PDPP Act, are not attracted. The petitioner has not damaged any public property, on the other hand, the petitioner's vehicle was damaged when it collided with the road divider. The said allegations do not attract the ingredients of Section 3 of the PDPP Act. He further submitted that the punishment prescribed for the said offences is below seven years. However, the Investigating Officer, without following the mandatory procedure as prescribed under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (for short, 'the BNSS') and the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble 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.

Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations levelled in the complaint against the petitioner. Whether the allegations made against the petitioner are true or not, the same has to be revealed during the course of investigation, especially the investigation is under progress. Since the offences levelled against the petitioner 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 and the petitioner is not cooperating with the investigation.

Learned counsel for the petitioner by way of reply submitted that the petitioner 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 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 wants to follow the due procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the 35(3) of the BNSS.

In view of the same, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on or before 19.08.2026 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 petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation. It is needless to mention that the petitioner is entitled to submit reply to the notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS by raising all the pleas which are available to him and he is also entitled to submit the documents, if any, which are in his custody, to the Investigating Officer.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.