The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, through S H O'' Kachiguda Police Station' ifi ;;tilb;'1ili:;p' Bi ii;Flii" i|.i'"iutoi' Hig h court' Hvderabad' Smt. Tahera Begum, Wo Mohammed Sattar' Aged.about 40 years' occ' E 3llr.ilrii6, n7" ii,'zaa rcs. n i, rl'g " Kachig uda H vdera b ad' " "rl .Respondents/ComPlainant Petition under Section 528 of BNSS Act' 2023 prayng .that . ,the circumstances stated in tn"'il"rnorrnoum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High relating to the FIR No 403 ol 2024 of Court may be pleased t..,ii ;; i;; ';cords fr"nlgrJl Fotice Station, fVO"rrOrO District, and quash the proceedings thereon' in. r.A. NO:1 OF 2O25 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS Act' 2023 prayng .the circumstances stated in tn"'il"r.n-'nO'm of Grounds of Criminal Petition' the High Court may be pleased t" S;;'"lil;;he' p'oce-edings including the arrest of the kr"r'iguda potice station, Hyderabad District, petitioner in FIR No.403 "i)uz+ "i pending disposal of the Criminal Petition -that . in. This Petition coming on for hearing' upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petitiJn and upon hearing the arguments of sri Khaja lnaya Thulla, Advocate for the Petitioner and Ms S Madhavi' Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No 2' The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AI{IL KUMAR JUKANTI CRIMINAL PETITIONN0.901 0F 20.25 ORDER: This Oriminal petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya l{agarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short .BNSSJ petitioner/ a ccused to quash the proceedings against him in FIR No.4O3 of 2024 of Kachiguda police Station, Hyderabad. The offences alleged against petitioner are under Sections 316(2) ancl 318(a) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short'BNS).

2. Heard Mr. Khaja Inayathula, learned counsel for petitioner and Ms. S.Madhavi, learned AssistarLt public Prosecutor frrr respondent No.1- State. perused the materiar on record.

3. An FIFI was registered on 3O.7O.2O24 against the petitioner under Sections 316(2) and 31g(4) of BNS basing on a complaint rnade by respondent No.2/de facto complainant. It is alleged in the complaint/FlR that respondent No.2 paid an amount of Rs.S2,OOO/- from December, 2022 to September, 2tO24 r.e., for 24 months to petitioner under 2 JAI! J CRLP 901 2025 Rehman Gold Scheme O1 Card and that certain other persons have afso paid different sums. It is further alleged that a total amount of Rs.5,07,000/ was paid to petitioner by different persons including Rs.52,OO0/- of respondent No.2. It is also alleged that petitioner vacated his shop over night. Hence, the comPlaint.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner/ accused submitted that there are no documents on record with regard to payment of sums as received by petitioner in response to the gold scheme ald in the absence of any such documents, the allegations made in the FIR cannot be held to be true' It is also submitted tl"at it is only with an intention to harass the petitioner, the said complaint was lodged and in the complaint, the names of other persons have tleen included without anY documents as Proof.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.l-State submitted that petitioner started a Scheme known as Abdul Rehman Gold Scheme ard that along with de facto complainant, certain other persons have also paid amounts totaling to Rs'5,07,O0O/- as disclosed in : t t I I I I I I I t I I :7/ J JAK, J cRrP 901 2025 the FIR anrl that petitioner vacated his shop over night taking away the cash and go1d. It is also submitted that investigatior-., ts in progress ald is still at crirne stage. Learned Assistalt Public Prosecutor placed on- record a

6. copy of sta tement of amount paid by petitioner, which includes the signature(s) of 15 customer(s) who lost different amounts, including gold of different quantities.

7. Petitioreer is absconding. During the course of submissions, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is willing to cooperate with the investigation

8. Consiclering the submission(s) made by learned counsel for petitioner. Investigating Officer is directed to proceed with the investig,ation after issuing notice under Sectiotr 35(3) of BNSS (earlier Section 4i-A of Cr.P.C.) to petitioner and shall follow the gpidelines of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh I I Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and anotherr. This Court being convinced tr1- the statement made across the Bal and the t I fervent request of learned counsel for petitioner, this order is being pass,ed. Petitioner, on receiving the notice, shall ' (2014) 8 scc 2?.1 a I t I l *l 1' 4 JAK, J cRr-P 901 2025 present himself before the Investigating Officer and co_ operate with the investigation. The Investigating Officer shall not take aly coercive steps. 9 . It is made clear that petitioner shall be present before the Investigating Officer, if his presence is necessary for the purpose of investigation. It is also made clear that if he does not present himself before the Investigating Officer, as required, this order shall stand vacated automatically. Any observations made in this order shall not influence the Court below while considering or concluding the case at the time of trial.

10. With the above observations, this Criminai petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shail stand closed I //TRUE COPY// Sd/. T. JAYASREE ASSISTA T REGISTRAR E TION OFFICER To, l.ThelVAdditionalChiefJudicialtvlagistrateatNampally,Hyderabad 2. The Station House Officer, Kachiguda Police Station' Hyderabad a. i;" CC" to tn" public prosecutol, Higfr Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] +. One CC to Sri Khaja lnaya Thulla, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies ADK/gh HIGH COURT DATED:2910112025 q :) o I 1 I SrAT 1r e. \ Oa () i -oi, JIN 'l $?5 1 r-)F S. tJ .\'/ |+" ORDER CRLP.No.901 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE CRLP \