Court of Karnataka in Gurushantaiah and another v. The State of Karnatakal and submitted that the procedure f

AND 1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, Telangana High Court Building, Hyderabad

2. Mohd Aijaz, S/o. Mohd Ellies Aged about 36 years, OccTechnician, R/o. H.No. 2-i 01 1 , 1012,3rd Floor, Flat No. 301 , Savdaqar Complex, Bazarghat, Nampally, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the ltttemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceeding in C.C.No.8808 of 2025 on the file of the Court of the Xll Additional Chief Judicial [Vlagistrate, Hyderabad against the petitionersi Accused No.1 and 2. l.A. NO: 1OF 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 stay all further proceedings of the petitioners/A.1 and 2 or any cohesive steps against them in C.C.No. 8808 of 2025 on the file of the Court of the Xll Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing I re Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argrr nents of Sri K.S.S Ayyubi, Advocate for the Petitioner and Smt S.Madhzr i, Assistant public Prosecutor High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderab ad on behalf of the Respondent No.1 / State. The Court made the following: ORDER: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.13 685 0F 2025 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.880B of 2025 on the file of learned Xll Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad, at Nampally, registered for the offences under Sections 115(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 (for short, 'BNS')

2. Heard Sri K.S.S. Ayyubi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. S. Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1 -State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the police failed to comply with the Rules and Regulations as per the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short, 'BNSS')' He further submitted that the petitioners are alleged to have committed the offences under Sections 115(2) and 351(2) of BNS, which are non-cognizable offences Hence, the police oughttohavefollowedtheprocedureofreferringtheinformantto the Magistrate and obtaining permissron from the Magistrate before taking up the investigation under Section 174 of BNSS' but F,I'D.J rl .1, h-o ll6115 ol-10t5 they failed to do so. He further relied upon a decis r n of the High 2 Court of Karnataka in Gurushantaiah and another v. The State of Karnatakal and submitted that the procedure f,: lowed by the police in the present case is in utter violation of the : <isting Rules. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings r the present C.C. against the petitioners herein.

4. Learned Assistant public prosecutor subnited that the police have acted very much in accordance with rw and they have made the G.D. entry. She further submitted l at the police have obtained permission of the jurisdictional tVlagist ate and only then they have proceeded with the investigation a rd therefore. Gurushantaiah's case (supra) cited by the learnec counsel for the petitioners does not apply to the presenl r ase. She. therefore, prayed to dismiss the Criminal petition. 5 Perused the record.

6. The petitioners herein are facing allegations u r jer Sections 115(2) and 351(2) of BNS. The contention of the petitioners, counsel is that the police failed to follow the procedu e laid down under BNSS and that the pollce ought to have I tllowed the ' crl.p.No.slt t of 2024, dated 02.09.2024 !F-'qt 3 ETD.J Crl.P.No.ll6E5 o[2025 procedure laid down under Section 174 of BNSS. The said Section is extracted hereunder for the sake of reference: "174 - lnlormation as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases. (1) When information is given to an officer in charge of a police station of the commission within the limits of such station of a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may by rules prescribe in this behalf , and,- (i) refer the informant to the Magistrate, (ii) fonrvard the daily diary report of all such cases fortnightly to the Magistrate. (2) No police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. (3) Any police officer receiving such order may exercise the same powers in respect of the rnvestigation (except the power to arrest without warrant) as an officer in charge of a police station may exercise in a cognizable case. (4) Where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non+ognizable." A perusal of the record reveals that the complaint was given by lhe de facto complainant on 29.06.2025 and the G-D. entry was 4 I,ID.J (. l'.No.I-]685 ot l0l_5 made on 30 06 2025 and further, a requisition wa!; stbmitted to the Magistrate concerned, pursuant to which the til rgistrate has passed an order on 16.07.2025 according perni ;sion to the police Nampally to register a case under Sections .l .15(2) 351(2) of BNS on the complaint of Sri Mohd. \ijaz, dated 29.06.2025, and subsequenfly, the present F.l.ti has been registered on 18.07.2025. The order, dated .16.07. t025, of the Magistrate reads as follows: "Considering the requisition filed by th: Sub_ lnspector of Police, p.S. Nampally, Hyderab;r vide reference cited, permission is accorded to oolice Nampally to register the case U/s 11b(2) and 3{ (2) of BNS on the complaint of Sri Mohd Aijaz, Cated 29 06 2025 " 7 Learned counsel for the petitioners has relit: I upon the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Gurushant,riah,s case (supra), wherein the lvragisrrate has faired to pass a d: aired order on the requisition submitted by the police. The Mag istrate has only endorsed that "perused and registration permitt, rd,,. Thus, the High Court of Karnataka has found fault with the < rder of the Magistrate observing that there is no application of he judicial mind by the Magistrate before permitting the police tc nvestigate 5 ETD,J Crl P.No.l1685 of2025 the non-cognizable offences. lt was also observed that under Chapter-V Rule 2(1) of the Karnataka Criminal Rules'of Practice, when a Magistrate directs investigation of a case under Sections 155(2), 156(3) or 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code, he shall specify in his order the rank and designation of the Police Officer or the Police Officers by whom the investigation shall be conducted, but the Magistrate has not passed orders in accordance with the said Rules, which is against the Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice, 1968 and thereby, the proceedings against the petitioner therein were quashed. But, no such Rule prevails in the State of Telangana. However, in the present case, the Magistrate has passed a speaking order according permission to the lnvestigating Officer. Hence, the said case law is not applicable to the case on hand. Therefore, the Criminal Petition lacks merit.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/- P.C. SULEKHA DEVI SSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Xll Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nampally' Hyderabad' i iil; 'si;ii;; H6ri" omo,i, r'rimpiirv potrce,station' Hvderabad 5 One CC to Sri. K.S.S Ayvubi' Advocate IUPUU-I ; i;; E6'r to iij," pJori"'itl!."'to, nish'Cou't fbr the State of relansana' 5. Two CD CoPies. Hvderabad [OUT] HIGH COURT DATED:1711112025 l I ..: o o 0 I FLb 2tr26 * ( * ,,' /'1 ORDER CRLP.No.13685 of 2025 i DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION q