The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, tiep by its public prosecutor, Hon,ble High Court of I elangana, Hyderabad Smt Nadikudjr Sravani, D/o. Late. Nadikuda Amarnath Occ. House Wife, 1A_ge 36 Yrs, R/o. CSK Green Villa No. 477 , Shad ttagar, f arooq Nagii' lVlandal, Ranga Reddy District - 509216 ...Respondents/Defacto-Complainant Petrtion under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Jt/emorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to quash the proceeding against the petitionei/Accused ln FIR No. 617 of 2025 on the fite of p.S. Shad Nagar, Cyberabad. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under section 482 of cr. p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar Fetition,the High court may be pleased to stay arr further proceedings including arrest of petiti6ner/Accused in FIR No. 617 ot 2025 on the fite of p.S. ShaJ Nagar, Cyberabad p"nJing disposal of the above criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri Gafar Mahammad, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additionar pubric prosecutor on beharf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the respondent no.2. The Court made the following: ORDER '::g' THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE N.TUKI\ IAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.9447 OF 2O25 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed under Section { 28 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'the IINSS'), seeking quashment of the proceedings against the petitioner in )rime No. 617 of 2025 of Shadnagar Police Station, Cyberabad Commiss onerate

2. The petitioner is sole accused in Crime No. 61 7 t 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 303(2), 3l; (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (tor short 'the BNS')

3. Heard fi/r.Gafar Mahammad, learned counsel 1)r the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional l) rblic Prosecutor, representing respondent No. 1 -State

4. The prosecution case in Lrief is that respond,: rt No.2/de facto complainant lodged report alleging that the petitioner uorked as driver with her, assisted with Bank activities, had took her che que book, which was issued in the year 2015 by the Bank of lndia. l,t per respondent No.2/de facto complainant only four leaves of the Ch rque Book were used and remaining were lost. Subsequently, upor filing of cheque bounce case against her and allegedly harassing her o extort money, ---qhe lodged report against the petitioner/accused. I 2 N7&/ Crl.P.No. 9417 of 2025

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the de facto complainant had borrowed Rs.9,75,0001 from him and issued post dated cheque as security, which was bounced upon presentment. Further, to evade repayment and to pressurize the petitioner, the complainant foisted the false case with delay alleging the cheque was stolen. Thus, invocation of criminal proceedings is untenable and prayed for quashment of the proceedings. Further, pleads that the elements of theft or criminal intimidation/extortion are not made out even accepting the complainant. Further, by suppressing material facts and without there being any information to the Banker about the alleged loss of cheque book only to avoid repayment the financial transaction, which is in civil nature, has been falsely projected as criminal case. Hence, prayed for quashment of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.

6. After making submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that although grounds exist for seeking quashment of the proceedings, the petitioner is determined to allow the process to run its course. However, he expressed apprehension of coercive action by the Police, emphasizing that no notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS has been served upon the petitioner. He submifted that the alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, and therefore, service of such notice is mandatory. Learned counsel accordingly prayed that appropriate directions be issued to the '!P:r tlF 3 NiR,Jr {,r/. l'.N0. 91 17 of 202 5 concerned police officials to ensure compliance with Se:tion 35(3) of the BNSS, which, if granted, would adequately redress the petitioner's grievance.

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, in resport e, submitted that the police report specifically narrates the offences al t ged and records the petitioner's involvement therein. He further sub r itted that issues concerning theft and extortion are matters for investir; rtion and that, at this stage, it would be inappropriate to conclude the I rlsity of the case solely on the petitioner's assertions. Nonetheler: s, the learned Prosecutor did not raise any specific objection to the 1 etitioner's prayer for issuance of a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNlj l B. I have perused the materials on record.

9. Considering the imputations made against fi-: petitioner, the existence of a pima facie casewarranting investigatior and the fact that the alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment for a term of less than seven years, and further taking into accourr the petitioner,s willingness to cooperate with the investigative process without entering into the merits of the case, the petitioner is directed to rppear before the lnvestigating Officer, within one week from the date cl receipt of a copy of this order. Upon such appearance, the lnvestigating )fficer shall issue notice to the petitioner under Section 35(3) of the Bl SS in relation to 4 A,:IR,/ CrLP.No. 944/ of 2025 ;,:' Crime No. 617 of 2025, and shall thereafter proceed further stricfly in accordance with law, while adhering scrupulously to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, l(2014) 8 SCC 273]. Simultaneously, the petitioner is directed to render full cooperation during the course of investigation and to abide by all lawful directions issued by the Investigating Officer.

10. With these directions, this Criminal petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. A.H.S. GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,rt^l9- SECTION OFFIGER To, 'l The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Shadnagai. 2. The Station House Officer, .straonagaip;tic"'Sllti"ii dyberabad. ? 9nu CC to Sri Gafar t\/ahammalO, noro"rt"liti;uc1 4. Two CCs to the public prosecutor, High Corrt ioil." State of Tetangana, 5. Two CD Cop-ies Hyderabad. [OUTI AM/gh ( HIGH COURT DATED:2910712025 ORDER CRLP.No.9447 of 2025 -::==. SiA i /:: ,1 0 i t'd 2tr26 o ./' .* )r.-P ,\T { C: r) .i -T DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETTTIC N. I t