The High Court · 2025

2. Nasreen Khanam,, W/o. Firdous Khan, Age.35 years, Occ. Housewife Fl/o. H.No. 5-84/1, lchoda, Adilabad District 5O43O7 ...RESPONDENTS/COM PLAINANTS 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 proceedings against the petitioners/accused no.1 to 7 in Cr.No. 373 of 2025 on the file of Echoda Police Station, Adilabad District. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2025 ii2i Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased stay all further proceedings including the arrest of the petitioners in Cr'No' 373 of 2025 on the file of Echoda Police Station, Adilabad District, during pending disposal of 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 SoMA RAVI KIRAN REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the foltowing: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGAIIA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO I Date: 08.12.2025 Between Shaheda Parveen and six others AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad and another Petitioners .Respondents Order This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.373 of 2025, on the file of the Echoda Police Station, Adilabad District, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.l to 7, for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 329(3) and 351(2) rlw 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for short 'BNS').

2. Heard Mr.Soma Ravi Kiran Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and lpJithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State. ..)..

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed the offences and they were falsely implicated in the present crime. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the allegations are purely civil in nature. He further subnritted that respondent No.2/de-facto complainant ought to have approached the competent court seeking enforcement of alleged oral agreement of sale. Hence, the ingredients of the alleged offences are not attracted against the petitioners. He further submitted that offences levelled against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. Hence, Investigating officer may be directed to follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 4l-A of the criminal procedure code, tg73 (for short, 'cr-P.c.')/Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik suraksha Sanhita 2023 (for short, 'BNSS') and also the guidelines formulated by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Biharr.

4. Learned Additional public prosecutor submitted that the Investigating officer will follow the procedure as contemplated under law and the petitioners may be directed to cooperate with the investigation. l1zor<; B scc 273 \ \ ::3::

5. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record it reveals that the offences levelled against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the Investigating Officer ought to have followed the procedure contemplated under Section 4l-A of the Cr.P.C/Section 35(3) of the BNSS and also the guidelines formulated by the Apex Court inArnesh Kumar supra.

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any view on the merits of the case, the I t petitioners/accused Nos.l to 7 are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer, on or before 20.12.2025, and on such appearance, the Investigating Officer is entitled to issue notice under Section 4l-A of Cr.P.C./Section 35(3) of BNSS and follow the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar supra.

7. It is made clear that the petitioners are entitled to submit reply/explanation along with the documents, which are available with them, to the lnvestigating Officer \ I 4;

8. If the petitioners fail to appear before the Investigating Officer within the stipulated time, the lnvestigating Officer is entitled to take action against them in accordance with law.

9. Subject to the above directions, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. sD/- A. ENIVASA REDDY ANT REGISTRAR 1 becnoru oFFlcER //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Boath, Adilabad District 2. The Station House Officer, Echoda Police Station, Adilabad District 3. Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court at Hyderabad. (OUT) 4. One CC to SRI SOMA RAVI KIRAN REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies TPK HIGH COURT JSR,J DATED:08/1 212025 ORDER CRLP.No.16184 of 2025 S'tiii 6 1 \r t}tt' ifi c() ..i * .155;p;rl CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISPOSED OF N o\\)' \ v{