✦ Telangana High Court · 13 Mar 2026

K. Narender Reddy v. State of Telangana

Case at a glance

Key paragraphs

  • Para 99. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dispor;, d of. / To 5 Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYI/ SDI. U SUDHA, ASSISTANT REGTSTRAR SECTION OFFICER ii[iIil$i"-,{}iHfr[""i:i:$$:iiili?$i::*i'ir;3Jl""r'3rniix#" o. 8"'"1" to Ms' K Sarala Mahender Reddy' Advocate toPucl 5. Two CD CoPies GNK…

Judgment

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courl may be pleased to call for the records and quash the FIR 27312026, dt24-02-2026 registered by Police Station Jagadgirigutta, (M) Quthbullapur, Dist. Medchal-Malkajgiri registered U/S 329 (3), 324 (4) R/lV Sec 3(5) BNS on the file of XIV Addl Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally. l.A. NO: 2OF 2026 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 proceedings including appearance and arrest of Petitioner by Police Station Jagadgirigutta, (M) Quthbullapur, Dist Medchal- Malkajgiri in FIR 27312026, dt 24-02-2026 on the file of XIV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, pending disposal of Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Ms. K Sarala Mahender Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Ra,r Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Responderr Nos.1 and appeared for the Respondent No.3. leamed 2 none The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COT'RTFOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYT) ERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMIN AT, PETITION No.3366 of 2026 Date: l0.03.2026 Between: K.Narender Reddy State ofTelangana, through Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad-TS and two others AND ..Petitioners ...Respondents ORDER This Criminal petition has been filed seeking ro quash rhe proceedings in FIR No.273 of 2026 of Jagadgirigutta police Station, Cyberabad District, wherein the petitioner was amayed as accused No.l, for the offences punishable under Sections 329(3) and 324(4) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short'BNS').

#2. Heard Mr.K.M.Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent Nos. I and 2. I._.-_-.-_--:--l 2

#3. With the conscnt of both the learned co r rsel. the crirninal petition is disposed olat the adrnission stage

#4. Lcanred counsel for the petitioner sul rnittcd that the petitioner has not committed the alleged offer r es ar.rd has becn talsely irnplicated in the present crime. He f url l :r submitted that the petitioner hirnself approached this Cou( as tlL, Chairnran of Sri Laxmi Vt:nkateshwara Swamy 1-emple, Jagathgi igutta, arrd lrlcd W.P.No.40409 ol 2025, questioning the action o tlte respottclents therein frrr not demolishing unauthorized c: tstructions, ttot cvicting encroachers, or taking serious actiort tgainst tlie l0'r' lespondcnt therein and others by issuing ttoli :es lo thenr in accordance with law, as they were attempting t.: alicnate teutple lands. ['le further subrnitted that while the sairl rvrit petition is pending, rcspondent No.3 lodged the present conrl laint against the petitioncr, though hc is a parly respondellt in thr: rbove said wlit pctition. Hence, the continuation of thc proceetl rgs against the pctitioner is a clear abuse of the process of law.

4.1 . He also subrnitted that the offences allcl:d against tl.re petitioners are punishable with imprisonment fo': a terrn ol lcss than seven years. The lnvestigating Officer, withc t t tbllowing the 3 mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "BNSS"), as well as the guidelines fbrmulated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v, Stute of Bihart , is proceeding with the rnatter, which is contrary to law.

#5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, basing upon the written instructions fumished by the Sub-lnspector ol Police, P.S. Jagadgirigutta, dated 06.03.2026, submitted rhat the lnvestigating Officer had already issued notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS to accused Nos.l to 6 on 28.02.2026 and the Investigating Officer has not received any explanation lrom the petitioner. However, the Investigating Officer will follow the procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the BNSS

#6. By way of reply, leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not received any notice frorn the lnvestigating Officer. He further submitted that whenever the petitioner receives notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, he will submit his reply/explanation along with the relevant documents belore the Investigating Officer. He further submitted that the ' 1zov1 a scc zlt 4 Investigating Officer may be directed to follou he due procedure as contetnplated under the provisions of the BN j i

#7. Havirrg considered the rival submissio rs made by the respective partics and upon perusal of the rnz t :rial available on record, it rcveals that the offences alleged again; the petitioner ar.e punishable with imprisonment of less than r;r ven years. Evcn according to the lear:ned Additional Publir: Prosecutor. the Investigating Officer had already issued notice ur dcr Section 35(3) of the BNSS to the petitioner. Flowever, the lear,t rd counsel tbr the petitioncr disputed the said factum of issuance ol- iotice.

#8. Taking into consideration the above saici subnrissions, the Investigating Ofllcer is directed to issue notice ur ter Section 35(3) ot' the BNSS to the petitioner. Upon receipt o[ sucl.r notice, the petitioner is entitled to submit his reply/explanat i, n along rvith the documents available with him before the Investigr :ing Officer. The Invcstigatrng Officer shall follow the procedurc as contemplated under the provisions of the BNSS, as well as tt: guidelines laid down by tlre Hon'ble Apex Court inArnesh Kunit r supra.

#9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dispor;, d of. / To 5 Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYI/ SDI. U SUDHA, ASSISTANT REGTSTRAR SECTION OFFICER ii[iIil$i"-,{}iHfr[""i:i:$$:iiili?$i::*i'ir;3Jl""r'3rniix#" o. 8"'"1" to Ms' K Sarala Mahender Reddy' Advocate toPucl 5. Two CD CoPies GNK HIGH COURT DATED: 1010312026 ORDER CRLP.No.3366 of 2026 .IHE S ,r, C)R { $- i) o (J t \9 1X tl/'fr 20?i I ")56................ - '.- -..-a; .,,-:7. ,a:' DISPOSTNG THE CRTMINAL PETITION -{Ks l=fzl*, /\ ( // €

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — ss. 35(3), 528; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Telangana High Court, on 13 Mar 2026. The bench was SREENIVAS RAO.

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Telangana High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments