Vatte Janaiah vs The State Of Telangana & Anr.

This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioner, who was arrayed as accused No.1, seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.414 of 2024, on the file of the Station House Officer, Suryapet Rural Police Station, Suryapet District, for the offences punishable under Sections 329(3), 324(4), 115(2), 352, and 351(2) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Heard Mr. Chalakani Venkat Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr.V.Jithendar Rao, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State. With their consent, 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 he has been falsely implicated in the present crime. The allegations levelled in the complaint are purely civil in nature in respect of agriculture land. Respondent No.2 ought to have approached the competent Civil Court, on the other hand, filed the present complaint by giving criminal colour. The petitioner never trespassed into the subject property nor removed the boundary stones as alleged in the complaint. He further submitted that the offences levelled 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') and the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar¹, is proceeding with the investigation and the same is contrary to law.

Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations in the complaint against the petitioner about the trespass and damaging the property. Whether the allegations levelled in the complaint are true or not,

(2014) 8 SCC 273 the same will be revealed during the course of investigation, especially investigation is under progress. He further submitted that the offences levelled against the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment below seven years and the Investigating Officer had already served the notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS to the petitioner on 05.11.2024 and the petitioner is entitled to put forth his grievance to the said notice, on the other hand, approached this Court and filed the present Criminal Petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner by way of reply submitted that the petitioner has not received the notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS.

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 has already served notice under Section 35(4) of the BNSS to the petitioner/accused No.1 on 05.11.2024. However, learned counsel for the petitioner disputed the same and submitted that the petitioner has not received the said notice. During the course of hearing, learned Additional Public Prosecutor placed the xerox copy of the notice issued under Section 35(4) of the BNSS. However, without expressing any view on the said issue, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on or before 25.08.2026 and on such appearance, the Investigating Officer is directed to issue notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS to the petitioner, if not already issued, and follow the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar supra and conclude the investigation. It is needless to mention that the petitioner is entitled to put forth his grievance to the Investigating Officer and he is also entitled to submit the documents, which are in his custody.

With the above directions, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.