Thokala Anvesh vs The State Of Telangana & Anr.

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.150 of 2026 of Nandipet Police Station, Nizamabad District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNS') and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'D.P. Act')

Heard Mr.G.Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Mr.B.Satish, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

With their consent, the criminal petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the ingredients of the offence under Section 85 of the BNS and Section 4 of the D.P. Act are not attracted against the petitioner. Respondent No.2 herself left the matrimonial house of the accused long ago and filed the present complaint by implicating the petitioner and his family members as accused, making omnibus allegations, even though they did not harass respondent No.2 for additional dowry. He further submitted that the offences levelled against the petitioner 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 Bihar¹, is proceeding further in the matter and the same is contrary to law.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that there are specific allegations regarding the demand for additional

---^{}[] (2014) 8 SCC 273 dowry and the physical and mental harassment caused by the petitioner and his family members. The said allegations attract the ingredients of the offences punishable under Section 85 of the BNS and Section 4 of the D.P. Act, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor reiterated the submissions made by learned counsel for respondent No.2. He further submitted that the Investigating Officer wants to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and also the guidelines formulated by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra) on the ground that the offences levelled against the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment less than years. However, the petitioner is not coming forward to receive the notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS and not cooperating with the Investigating Officer.

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 learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the Investigating Officer intends to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and also the guidelines formulated by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra).

In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on or before 31.08.2026 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.