Vatti Janalah Yadav & Anr. vs The State Of Telangana & Anr.

This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.228 of 2026 of Suryapet II TN Police Station, Suryapet District, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2) and 351(2) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNS').

Heard Mr.Chalakani Venkat Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.

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

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not committed the alleged offences and have been falsely implicated in the present case. The allegations levelled against the petitioners are purely civil in nature pertaining to immovable property. Respondent No.2 ought to have approached the competent Civil Court, on the other hand, filed the present complaint by giving criminal colour. He further submits that the ingredients of the offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2) and 351(2) r/w 3(5) of the BNS are not attracted against the petitioners and 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 Bihar^{11.(2014) 8 SCC 273}, is proceeding further in the matter and the same is contrary to law.

Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioners to attract the ingredients for the offence under Sections 126(2), 115(2) and 351(2) r/w 3(5) of the BNS. The petitioners are involved in several other crimes and they are not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings at this stage. He further submitted that the Investigating Officer has already served notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS to the petitioners and the petitioners are entitled to submit their reply/explanation to the said notice. However, without submitting the same, they have straightaway approached this Court and filed the present petition, which is not maintainable under law.

By way of reply, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as on today the petitioners have not received notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS.

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 petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. Even according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the Investigating Officer has already issued notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS to the petitioners.

In view of the above, the petitioners are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on or before 14.03.2026, if not already received notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS and submit reply/explanation along with the documents, which are available with them, 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.