Amol Gopalrao v. Ashtankar

the Memorandum of Grounds of Crimrnal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Quash the FIR No. 69312025 lodged against the Petitioner/Accused No 2 at P S Choutuppal, District: Rachakonda, Telangana, u/s 316(2) and 318(4) of B N.S herein. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2026 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated rn the Memorandum of Grounds of Cnminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of further proceedings in FIR No. 69312025 lodged against at P.S. Choutuppal, District Rachakonda, Telangana, u/s 316t2 r and 318(4) the Petitioner/Accused No.2 of B.N.S. pending disposal of the abo,,r Criminal Petitron. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Me r crandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Kr-rdeti Ran;ith Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor for the I ate of Telangana on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None appeared for Resporr 3nt no.2. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STAI'E OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITI ON No.449l of 2O26 Between: Date: 30.03.202 6 Amol Gopalrao Ashtankar ...Petitioner/Accused No.2 AND The State of Telangana, Rep by its public prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad and another. . ..Respondents Order: This Criminal Petition has been fileri under Section 52g of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (for short ,the BNSSJ by the petitioner/accused No.2 seeking to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.693 of 2O2S of Choutuppal police Station, Rachakonda District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for short 'the BNSJ.

2. Heard Mr. Ranjith Reddy Kondeti, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No. 1-State. 2

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner subrr tted that the petitioner has not comrnitted any offence$ and he I as been falsely implicated in the present crime. The nature of ,he allegations leveled in the complaint is purely arising out c I employer and employee relationship and the said allegations does not attract the offences under Sections 316(2), and 318(4) of the BNS. The offences leveled against the petitioner are Ft nishable with imprisonment up to seven years. However, tl.t : Investigating Offlrcer, without follolr'ing the mandatory proce J rre prescribed under Section 35(3) ol l.he BNSS, the guidelines issr ed by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Biharl, th: principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Md. Asfak AIz,t e v. The State of Jharkhand & another (Crl.A.No.22O7 of 2023) dated 3l .O7 .2023, and also the circular issued by this Court in ROC.No.1399 lSOl2O2:, dated 09.08.2023, is pro,: eding with the investigation, which is <;ontrary to law.

4. He further subn ritted that the petitioner i pproached the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Il Longir and frled application for grant of anticipatory bail and the r aid application was disposed of on 18.02.2026, directing the Invr: tigating Offrcer to follow the guidelines formulated by the Hon'ble iupreme Court r(2014) 8 SCC 273 3 in the judgment of Arnesh Kumar supra. Inspite of the same, the lnvestigating Ofhcer without issuing the notice to the petitioner, insisting the petitioner to appear before the police station, which is contrary to law and also contrar5z to the order passed by the learned trial Court. Hence, the continuation o[ proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse of process of law.

5. Per contra, the learned Additional public prosecutor, basing upon the written instructions dated 25.O3.2026 furnished by the Sub-lnspector of Police, Choutuppal p<>lice Station, yadadri Bhongir District, submitted that the Investigating Officer issued notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS to accused No.l on

30.01.2026 and the investigation is under progress and recorded the statements of LWs-l and 2. However, the Investigating Officer will.issue notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS to petitioner/accused No.2 and that the Investigating Officer will follow the procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and the guidelines issued by the Hontrle Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra), order dated ta.02.2026, passed by the learned trial Court in Cr1.M.P.No.48 of 2026 and requested this Court to direct the petitioner to cooperate with the investigation.

6. Having considered the rival subnrissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of th,: material available on 4 record, it reveals that the offences le ,eled against petitioner/ accused No. 2 are punishable with impr i ;onment of less than seven years. It is further reveled from tht: record that in Crl.M.P.No.48 of 2026., the learned trial Court ir le order dated

18.O2.2026, directed the Investigating Offrcer to follorv the guidelines formulated by the Hon'ble Suprem': Court in the judgment of Arnesh Kumar supra and also direcre I the petitioner to cooperate with the Investigating Officer. Hence Lhis court is of the considered view that the Investigating Officer ought to have followed the direction issued by the learned trial Co Lrt and also the guidelines formulated by the Hon'ble Suprem,: Court in the judgment of Arnesh Ku.mar supra.

7. For the foregoing reasons and the submissir) Ls made by the lcarned Additional Public Prosecutor, ihe Investis rting Ofhcer is directed to scrupulously follow the procedure ir contemplated under the provisions of the BNSS and the guidelirr, s laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar sup, : and also the direction issued by the learned trial Court ar-. c conclude the investigation. It is needless to mention 'l )re that the petitioner/accused No. I is entitled to submit his eply, whenever he receives a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNS S by raising all 5:: the pleas which are available to him and he is also entitled to submit the documents, which are in his custody.

8. Subject to the above directions, the Criminal petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed To //TRUE COPY// SD/- B.REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER 1, The Magistrate of First Class at Choutuppal. 2- The station House officer, choutuppar porice Station, Rachakonda District. 3. Two CCs to Public prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, 4. One CC to Sri. Kondeti Ranjith Reddy, Advocate IOPUCI 5. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] I I PrlPSL HIGH COURT DATED: 3010312026 ORDER CRLP.No.4491 ot 2O26 1VE ) t I h?$ l[lt 6).t * ...,/. J,T DISPOSING OF THE CRL.PETITON