The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 92 of 2025 on the file of Bodhan town Police station, Nizamabad District against the petitioners herein. l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including arrest in Crime No. 92 of 2025 on the file of Bodhan town Police station, Nizamabad District against the petitioners. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T Srujan Kumar Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and of None appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.3416 of 2025 ORDER: This petition is filed seeking quashment of the proceedings in FIR No.92 of 2025. of PS Bodhan, Nizamabad District, against the petitioners/accused Nos 4 and 6. 2 Heard Mr.T.Srujan Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and tt/r.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State.

3. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.4 and 6 in the crime for the offences under Sections 318 (4),336 (3) and 340 (2) r/w 3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita' 2023.

4. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that the de facto complainanUrespondent No.2 lodged Police report on 01 03'2025 stating that after the demise of her parents, herself along with her sister approached one Paruchuri srinivas for assistance in mutation proceedings to transfer the land of their parents admeasuring Ac.0,36 gts. in the names of herself and her sister. ln that course' as per the instructions they appeared before the Sub-Registrar, where their photos and finger prints were taken. However, the Computg4- 2 Operator (one of the accused) informed them that due to lag in the server, the process could not be completed. At a later date, on her online verification she found the name of one Kandimalla Ranjith against the schedule property. Thus, giving the particulars of the persons who are involved in the process including the petitioners herein filed the Police report. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pleaded that there was three months delay in filing of FIR and on the other hand, the de facto complainant had entered into sale transaction and . even executed sale deed in favour of Kandimalla Ranjith Thereafter, in the suit filed by Ranjith wde O.S.No.11 of 2025, an injunction was also granted against the de facto complainanUrespondent No.2 and her sister. Despite that as there was rise in the property values, to arm twist, the petitioners, the respondent No.2/de facto complainant foisted the Police report for illegal gain. He further submits that though the offences are punishable under seven years, no notice under Section 35 (3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been issued so far and the petitioners although prepared to meet the challenge, as apprehending arrest by the Police prayed for quashment of proceedings. \ \ _)

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that accusations in the FIR are well founded in the investigation and as the Police report has been filed even before the civil suit filed by the Ranjith'theclaimofthepetitionersthatthePolicereportisanactof counter blast, is unacceptable. Additionally, pleaded that though the concerned Police made an effort to reach the petitioners for issuance of notice under Section 35 (3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, as they were not available, the same could not be served. Further pleaded that quashment of the proceedings at this stage would prejudice the interests of the de facfo complainant' I have perused the materials on record.

7. 8. Having regard to the allegations in the Police report apparent that in the name of the processing mutation the biological particulars of the respondent No.2/de facto complainant and her sister have \ been collected and fabricated the sale deed in favour of Kandimalla I Ranjith and the investigation reported by the proseculion, a prima facie case is found against the petitioners. Thus, interference at this stage would not be proper in securing the ends of justice'

9. Howsoever, as the alleged offences are punishable under seven years of imprisonment and the efforts of investigating agency to serve the notice remained futile for want of petitioners' presence, it is clear that the investigating agency is not inclined to arrest the 4 petitioners and intending to proceed with the investigation by serving the Section 35 (3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 notice. 10, That being the ,position, directing the petitioners to appear before the lnvestigating Officer of PS. Bodhan Town, within a week from today, upon such appearance, the lnvestigating officer is directed to serve notice under Section 35 (3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and thereafter, conducting the proceedings as per the prescribed procedure and guidelines of the Hon'ble fpex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. Sfate of Biharl , is found appropriate and ordered accordingly.

11. With this directions, this Criminal Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL' ASSISTANT REGITRAR' d// SECTION OFFTCER To, DL

1. 2 J 4 The Station House Officer, Bodhan Town Police Station' Nizamabad District Two CCs to Public prosecu-toi iigh Court for the State of Telangana at Hvderabad. (OUT) ;1" ct;.';i drulan Kumar Reddv' Advocate [oPUc] Two CD CoPies o- ' (zott) 8 scc zzr HIGH COURT DATED:1110312025 ORDER CRLP.No.3416 ot 2025 I 1t{6 srAr( j 1I urn ?1125 q o .k D SP'1C CRMINAL PETITION IS DISPOSED OF v