Turaka Nagabhushanam vs The State Of Telangana & Anr.

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused, seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.837 of 2026 of Madhapur Police Station, Cyberabad District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316 (4) and 318 (4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'the BNS').

Heard Ms.Sureddy Priyanka, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1.

With the consent of both the learned counsel, the 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 made in the complaint, the ingredients under Sections 316(4), 318(4) of BNS do not attract. She further submitted that as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Ors vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr^{11.(2024) 10 SCC 690}, wherein it was held that both the offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust are independent and distinct and that the two offences cannot co-exist. She further submitted that the petitioner has already refunded the entire amount alleged in the complaint. Respondent No.2 sent an email to the Investigating Officer/SHO, Cyber Crime Police Station, on 25.07.2026, stating that his financial dispute with the petitioner had been resolved, that he had received the amount, and that he did not wish to proceed with the complaint any further. He accordingly requested withdrawal of the complaint. Hence, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse of the process of law.

Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations in the complaint that the petitioner, with a dishonest intention, collected a huge amount of Rs.6 lakhs. The said allegations attract the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 316(4) and 318(4) of the BNS. Whether the allegations levelled in the complaint are true or not can be revealed only during the course of the investigation, especially when the investigation is still in progress. At this stage, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings. He further submitted that the petitioner's contention that the amount was paid to Respondent No.2 and that Respondent No.2 had requested the Investigating Officer to close the complaint can be revealed only during the course of the investigation. He further submits that the Investigating Officer intends to follow the procedure contemplated under

---²(2014) 8 SCC 273 Section 35(3) of the BNSS and the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra) on the ground that the alleged offences levelled against the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. However, the petitioner has not been cooperating with the investigation.

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

Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that, subsequent to the registration of the crime on 04.06.2026, the petitioner paid the entire amount to Respondent No.2. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed on record a copy of the letter sent by Respondent No.2 to the Investigating Officer/SHO, Cyber Crime Police Station, wherein it is stated that Respondent No.2 had received the entire amount from the petitioner and did not wish to pursue the proceedings further. However, whether the said letter was in fact submitted by Respondent No.2 and whether Respondent No.2 intended to withdraw the complaint against the petitioner are disputed questions of fact, which have to be revealed during the course of the investigation. However, 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 procedure as 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 same, the petitioner/accused is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on or before 05.09.2026, and on such appearance, the Investigating Officer is directed to issue notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS and follow the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra). It is needless to mention that the petitioner/accused is entitled to put forth his grievance upon receipt of the notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and are also entitled to submit the documents, if any, which are in his possession.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.