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 o. ft"rruo to quash the FIR No. 86 of 2025, dated 16-06-2025. on the fite of police Station Snalibanda, Hyderabad under offences sectron 318(4)' 329(3), 331(1), 332(a), 336(2), 351 (2) 61(2) ttw. 3 (5) B N S asainst the P et it ro n e r/Acc u sed No.4. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 that in the circumstances Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying etition, the High Court maY stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal P No.4 in FIR No 86 of 2025 be pleased to stay the arrest of the petitioner/accused Hyderabad, including the dt.16-6-2025 before Police Station Shalibanda' investigation of the entire P roceedings for the offences un der section 318(4), 61(2) r/w. 3 (5) B N S., and Pending 32e(3), 331(1), 332(a), 336(2)' 351(2)' disposal of the above criminal petition. r-l-tt-, -?EAa"ry,g -/ : '.€ _j, This Petrtron coming on for hearing. upon perusing trr-' Memorandum of Grounds of Crrminal Petition and upon hearing the argumen's of Sri IIURESH SHIV SAGAR, Advocate for the Petitioner and SRI E GAt\ E SH. the Asststant Public Prosecutor Ior the Respondent No.1 and none rtppeared- for the Respondent No 2. The Court made the following: ORDER ryY THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.7783 OF 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash FIR No.B6 of 2025 dated 04.O9.2024 on the file of PS, Shalibanda, Hyderabad, registered against the petrtioner/A4 for the offences r-rnder Sectior-rs 318(4), 329(3),331(1) 332(a), 3s6(2), 3s1(2), 6r(21 rlv 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhither, 2023 (for- short 'BNS') on the complaint being filed by tbe defaclo complainant,r2,<l .""Oorldcnt namel,v Mohammcd Rashacl l-Idclin Kharr.

2. When the matter is taken up for consideration, Ms.Radhika Mur-rdra, learned counsel appearing for the counsel on record Sri Suresh Shiv Sagar, would submit that the petitioner has filed complaint against the verrdors ol )ttd respondent, i.e., Mohammed Sayccd, Mohammed Kaiser and Shamshuddin Khan with the P.S. Shalibanda and the same was registered as FIR No.9 of 2025, dated 25.01.2025 for the oflences under Pag. 2 tll-q Sections 318(4), 338, 329(3), 324(4), 35u. 35).(2) r/w 3(5) of BNS. IIc lurther submlts that the ac('rtsed thelein filed Criminal l)etition No.1B 12 <tf 2O2!t reforc this Court, rthercir.r this Court grantcd interir.r protection directing thc rcsponcle nt/ policc not tt, arrest the petitior-rers/A1 to ,A3 durrng pertdency ,rl the said Crimin:rl Petition.

3. Learned cr>unsel for the petitioner fultlrer subnrits that civil dispurte s are pcr.rding bctu,ecn I lr,- petitioner and Ll-rc 2"' r.cspondent belore thc learned VIII Junior Civil Judge, Citl' Civil Court, Hyclcrrrbad vide O.S.No.43O7 ol 2024. u,hich has [;een filc l to declare registcrcd sale dced vidc documcnt No.2 \ 16 of 2024 dated 12.07.2024 as r-rull and void. 1lt respect ol H.No.19 3-428, admeasuring 135 sq.1'ds :;rtuated at Jahanuma Charchaman Color-ry, Kalu,rri:;itdd Lane, Hyderabad. Hc also submits that FIR Nrr !(r of 2()25 dated 16.06.2025 is filcd as a counter blasl to thc IIIR filed by the petitioner herein against the vc:rlors of the -.-ffiry ,7':''' l'age 3 of9 2'"r respondent, imposin6l stringent provisions of law in order to exert pressure upon the petitioner. She further submits that thc contents of the FIR pertain to civii clisputes and did not attract any ingredicnts of criminal provisions of lau,, as stated supra. Hence, she sought for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner in FIR No.B6 of 2025, dated 16.06.2025 on the file of PS Shalibanda, Hyderabad

4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for State would submit that except Section 332(a) ol BNS, all other sections imposed against the petitioner are uncler 7 years of imprisonment. Section 332(al of BNS states that whoever commits house- trcspass in order to the committing of any offence, the said offer.rce is punishable with death, shall be punished .r with imprisonment lor life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, and shall a-lso be liable to hne. He further submits that Section 332(al of BNS will not fall within the ambit of Ir;rsc 4 of 9 iiri.' ' a. Section 35(3) ol BNS to issue noticc to t-r I pctitic,ner, hence, sceking libcrty to issuc Section 35(.t) of BNS will not corne to thc rcscue of the petit ionc- Thcre are serious allcgations against the pctitione.r. H<. further submits thaL ur-r1ess thorough triai is {.or icls,.1"6 ,n" truth or olherwisc rvill not be elicitcd, anr I sought for dismissal oI rhe sanr.

5. Having hcarcl learned coultsel lor tL c pctitiotrer, learned Assistanl Public Prose cutor lor t I r St,ate ,and upon verilying the rnaterial on record placerl bclorc t:his Court, this Court is of the opinion tl-rat rpon filing complair-rt lty thc defacto complatnant, tl-r:, crime has been registered by thc respor-rdent/polir:e rr ;,ler Section 332(a) of BNS and the punishment prcs(_-r.bcrl under Section is imprisonment for lifc :rrtr I r.igorous tmprisonment for a period ol ten yertrs anrl shali also liable for fine Pagc 5 of I 6 After careful pemsal of the complaint, though it is stated in the complaint that the petitioner illegally trespassed into the property of the defacto complainant, there is no specific mentiotl of time and date and the persons r,t ith whom thc petitioner has forcibly trespassed into the property.

7. It is also matter of record that prior to thc registration of the prescnt crirre in this Criminal Petition, the petitioner has iiled another complaint wlrich has been registercd as Crime 9 of 2025, dated

25.O1.2025 by thc PS, Shalibanda against the vendors of the 2"d respondent/defacto complainant' Before registering the complaint filed by the defacto complainant, the responder-rt/police ought to have examined genuineness of complaint filed by the defacto complainalt ou

16.06.2025 The )nct respondent/ defacto complainant also filed complaint under Section 223 r/w Section 175(3) of BNSS Act, but faited to bring to the notice ol the learned trial Co- urt l'.ltc (r of 9 t:-'. & 1*; ' '\. about the existing FIR filccl by the petiti{)ner herein, u4-rich is r-egistered as Crin-re No.9 of .l 125, d:rted

25.O1.2025 against the vcndors of thc rcs1., rnclcr-rt t.c de'fctcto complainant in thc said complairt. '['he s;zrid complaint statccl to have bccn relerred to lr'' Lhe le iu'r-rcd Magistrate. Since the complaint iil 'rl by the pctit.ioner/A4 is already pcrldil1g and registt ng another complaint or1 the reference made by ll)e leir:red Magistrate, sh:rll not serve any purposc, ( l r'1)t pirtling prcssure on the petitioner, to settlc tc|r :; u,'ith the d.efacto complainant in civil matter, whictr is adrnittt:clly pencling belore the VIII Junior Civil Judgr Citl' Clivil Court, Hydererbad vide O.S.No.4307 of 202,1 B. Under these circurrrstanccs, this Cor ; t dcems; it proper to direct the respor-rdent/ policc , o conduct investigation, strictly in accordance u,itlr lau, by adhering to the guidelincs framed by ilrc Honble Supreme Court in the case sf t-"'r' k,mae t . I'agc 7 ol 9 Bihart and issuc notice as contemplated under Section 35(3) o[ BNSS to the petitioner and conduct investigation and sl'rall file report before the learned trial Court. On the pretext of invcstigation, the respondent/ police shall not resort to take any coercive steps or illegal action against the petitioner/A4. The petitioner is also directed to cooperate u.ith the investigation and to file his defcr-rcc and expl:uration, il any, before tl-re Investigating Officer, upon u'hich, the Invcstigating Olficer shall conduct investigation to drart' logical conclusion ar-rd to file final report beforc the concernecl trial Court, strictly in accordance 'n'ith la"r'. It is needlcss to sa]', any deviation in this regard will be vie',r,ed seriousll,. It is made clear that on the pretext of investigation, the respondent/ police shall not arrest the petitioner/ A4 ' 1zo t+y a scc :zl I'agc 8 of 9

9. With the above direction, this Crinlir'.al Petitior-r is disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous pcl,rtions, il' any, pcnding, shall stand closed SD/. T AQr;r i\ \ sRtNtvASA REDDY / $.rarur REGrsr_RAR *--1- \=---P-- t="r,o* oFFrcER //TRUE COPY' To, '1 . The XVI Additional Chief Judicial Magrstrate at Nampaliy. Hyderabad 2. The Station Flouse Officer, Shalibanda Pofice Station, Fly,Cerabad. 3. One CC to SRI SURESH SHIV SAGAR Advocate [OPL a] 4. Two CCs to SRI PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State ,:f Telangana, Hyderabad. [OUT] v 5 Two CD Copies Gtt, lrh HIGH COURT DATED:2410712025 ORDER CRLP.No.7783 of 2025 ', 2 ,' oui ?&[ \. 1,.7r; - 1.,t- l) DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITIOI{ g /- /3 /t{ t2,//o