Devulapally Vara Prasad Rao v. The State of Telangana
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ss. 35(3), 528
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 42O, 406, 465, 468, 471
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dispose,i of 1 (2014) 8 scc 273 =l I I 3 ETD, J Ctl.P 14492 2025 As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- A. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /t-lv SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To.…
Judgment
Cause title
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 QUASH the FIR No.72612024 for the offences U/s.406, 42O, 465, 468 & 471 of IPC on the Police Station, Nagole against the Petitioner/Accused. ...RESPONDENTS
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 in connection with the FIR No.726i2024 for the offences. U/s.406, 42O, 465, 468 & 471 of IPC on the Police Station, Nagole, against the Petitioner/Accused, including .dispensation of personal appearance of the Petitioner/Accused before the lnvestigating Officer and not to arrest the Petitioner/Accused, and to pass 'This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of
Sri SANNIDHIRAJA MALLESWARA RAO ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri \\ : t Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Addl. Public Prosecutor on behtrl of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No-2. The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.14492of 2o25
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings against him in Crime No.726 ot 2024 on the file of Nagole Police Station, Rachakonda District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of lndian Penal Code, 1860 (for short'lPC').
Heard Mr.S.Malleswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is facing false allegations, has not committed any of the offences as alleged, and that the police have issued a notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS. \ \4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner has also filed his reply, and it is now for the police to consider the same. 7 2 ETD, J Ctl.P 14492 2025
Perused the record.
The petitioner herein is facing the alle; rtions under Sections 406,42O,465, 468 and 471 of lPC. lt i; borne out by the record that, according to the submissions of bot counsel, the petitioner has already been served with a notice t nder Section 35(3) of BNSS and has also submitted an e <planation in response to the said notice. Thus, in the facts and r of the case, this Court deems it appropriate ircu mstances o direct the lnvestigating Officer to follow the procedure laiJ down under Section 35 (3) of the BNSS (previously section 4l A of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) and the guidelines fornl rlated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of lndia in Arnesh Kumi r v. State of Bihal scrupulously and also consider the explanil on submitted by the petitioner herein and complete the investigi tion strictly in accordance with law.
Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dispose,i of 1 (2014) 8 scc 273 =l I I 3 ETD, J Ctl.P 14492 2025 As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- A. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /t-lv SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To. R.R.District at L.B'Nagar' "l . The I Addl. Junior, Civil Judge -Cum-l-Addl Metropolitan Magistrate Court 2. The SHO, PS Nagole, Rachakonda' 3. One CC to SRt. sn(i'iriiiiiileJn-vrel-l_EswaRA RAO Advocate [oPUc] ;. 6;; cc io snr. PUBLIc PRoSECUToR Advocate IoPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies GE/SA v, /t 0l l I HIGH COURT DATED:1011112025 ORDER CRLP.No.14492 ot 2025 ///:,,' ' ''- ' '-. i,c'o {; 2 \., tg \, [iI M I ,/ ',/ -;.' DISPOSING OF THE CRLP WITHOUT COSTS ,
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.