S Hon'ble Apex court in Arnesh Kumar v. state of Biharl scrupulously and the

1. State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad.

2. G. M lmran Khan, S/o. G.t\I. Bahbood Ali Khan, Rep by as GPA_Holder of Mr. H. K. Sivasubramanian, S/o. Late Kannan , Clo. V Kan191,-G.220 , Vedvihar, AWHO colony, Subash Nagar, Hyderabad - 500 015 ...Respondents Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circurnstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Quash the Criminal proceedings initiated by the Respondent No. 2 i.e., FIR/Crime No. 1265t2025 of Miyapur Police station on the file of the Vlll Additional Judicial Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally. l.A. NO: 1 OF 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in FIR/Crime No.126512025 of lvliyapur Police station on the file of the Vlll Additional Judicial lt/lagistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally including arrest of the Petitioners, pending 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 V tr4urali Nlanohar, Advocate for the Petitioners ?rrd Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THEHON'BLESMT.JUSTICETIRUMALADEVIEADA 1 ORDER: This criminat petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.6, 2'3&4seekingtoquashtheproceedingsinFlRNo.l265of2025 onthefileoftheMiyapurPoticeStation'Cyberabad'fgrtheoffences under Sections 329(3), 336(3)' 351(3) read with 3(5) of BNS'

2.HeardSriV.MuraliManohar,learnedcounselforthe petitionersandSriJithenderRaoVeeramalla,learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No' 1-State'

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegations of trespass, forgery and criminal intimidation made against the petitioners are utterly false and that they have not committed any such acts as alleged by the de facto complainant' It is further submitted that the de facto complainant is in possession of the property, but he is in Australia. He further submitted that in fact, the subject land is given for mining rease by the grandfather of the de facto complainant, but one N. Venkatesam and the petitioners purchased the land from the grandfather of the de facto complainant. He further submitted that there are land disputes between the t t \ \ \-E \ .': 'l 2 EfO,J c.t.P. No.1321A ot 2025 grandfather of the de facto complainant and Sri N. Venkatesam and that a civil suit is pending between both the parties. The said suit filed by the grandfather of the de facto complainant for permanent injunction was dismissed holding that the land is in possession of N. Venkatesam. He further submitted that the petitioners are not parties to any such documents and that there is an Award passed in land acquisition proceedings. He further submitted that there are parallel disputes of title between both the parties, but the petitioners are in possession and hence, trespass cannot be alleged against the petitioners and that the petitioners are bonafide purchasers and they do not know whether the title of vendor is genuine or not. He further submitted that when they are the bonafide purchasers and held to be in possession by a court of law, they cannot be roped in with the allegation of trespass and hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that permission is sanctioned by Gram Panchayat on 19.01.1g82 in favour of N. Venkatesam for constructing a new house in survey No.44 as per the plan annexed. He further submitted that if at all the petitioners say that they are the bonafide purchasers they can as well submit the documents before the police during the course of I I 3 EID,J c.t-P.N..132rA ot 2025 investigation and that the offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable with less than 7 years of imprisonment and the police may be directed accordingly.

5. Perused the record.

6. The contents of the complaint point out the offences under Sections 329(3),336(3),351(3) read with 3(5) of BNS against the petitioners, which attract punishment of less than 7 years of imprisonment. The petitioners have placed voluminous documents I t on record to substantiate their contentions that they are the bonafide purchasers and that they are in possession of the property. Since \ t the offences are punishable with imprisonment of less than 7 years, without going into the merits of the case, it is deemed appropriate to direct the police concerned to invoke the procedure laid down under Section 35(3) of the BNSS.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed directing the petitioners to appear before the lnvestigating Officer concerned on or before 17.11.2025 between 11.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., and in turn, the Investigating Officer is directed to follow the procedure laid down under Section 35 (3) of BNSS and the guidelines formulated by the / 4 ETD,J Crl-P. No-13219 ot 2O2S Hon'ble Apex court in Arnesh Kumar v. state of Biharl scrupulously and the petitioners are also directe,J to co_operate with the lnvestigating officer and to furnish the reqr.risite information and documents as and when required by him. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shail stand crosed SD/. S RJUNA RAO REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII OFFICER To, 1' The v'r Additionar Judiciar Magistrate of First crass, Kuk,atpary, cyberabad 2. The Station House Officer, nn,VZpw police Strt-ionl Cyberabad : U:"?ff#fti+i t ff:33 3"X,I";ti p'"'"'Li";ffi-""-ffi i"#.,,te orreransana at Manohar' Advocate topucl I I ABK/sa t lzot+1 8 scc 273 HIGH COURT DATED: 2811ot2025 ORDER CRLP.No.13218 of 2025 I if o J ) L '') a, * (\ 24 tlcu p5 i( .4= T c'r DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION p \