The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS pr.aying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for'the record and quash the proceedings in Crime No. 2634 of 2025, dated 12-'11-2025, on the file of the Gachibowli Police Station, Cyberabad for the offences punishable under section 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) BNS. l.A. NO: 2OF 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 the proceedings in Crime No. 2634 ol 2O25, dated 12'11-2025, on the file of the Gachibowli Police Station, Cyberabad for the offences punishable under section 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) BNS. CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 16115 OF 2025 Between: 1 Mr G. Nagesh Yadav years, Occ. Business, Reddy, Telangana. @Golla Nagesh, S/ R/o. H.No.2-8911.V o. G. Satlr riah, Aged about 45 attinagulapri lly, Gandipet, Ranga

2. Kammari. Raghavendra Chary, S/o. Kammari Ramac tendra Chary, Aged about3S_years, Occ. Business,'R/o. 2-89/1, Vattinagulal: rlly, Gandipe('Raiga Reddy, Telangana. 1ea1q, Qc9 Business, R/o. H.No. 2-89, Vattinagutapa y, Reddy, Telangana

3. Kammari Laxman Chary, S/o. Kammari Shanjaraiah () rary, Aged about 40 Ringa 4. Kammari Narsimha Chary, S/o. Kammari Shanjaraiah --rary, Aged about 53 1eap, Qc9. Business, FVo. H.No. 2-89, Vattinagulapal y, 'Canilpet, ningi Reddy, Telangana. 5. Kamma,ri Aparna, W/o. Kammari. Raghavendra Chary, I qed about 36 vears. Occ. Housewife, Ri/o. 2-8911, Vatti-nagutapaily, cdn,t iet, R;"g;-d"ddt; Telangana -Ganiipet,

6. Kammari Laxmi, W/o. Kammari Venkataswami, Aqed a:out 43 vears. Occ. - Housewife, R/o. 2-89, Vattinagulapally, Gandipei, REnge leddy T;la;gana 7. Mallesh Yadav @,_ Parmala Mallesh, S/o. Jangaiah, Ag ed about 5g years, ucc. Eusrness, tvo. 2-103, Vattinagulapally, Gand I et, Ranga deddy, Telangana AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep by its public prosecutor Hic I Court of Telangana at Hyderabad ...Petitioner No.1 to 7/Accus ed No.14, 6,7 & 12

2. Ms. Nagulapally Vinayalatha, D/o. Late Naqulapallv Ramir Krishna. Aoed aboul 44 years,_Occ. Unknown, Rl/o. H.trto.-g-Sb, Joumalis Cotonv, "- - Seriligampally, Ranga Reddy, Telangana . .Respondent No.1 ...Respondent No.2/De - acto Complainant Petition under section s28 of BNSS praying that in he circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the. ligh Court may be pleased to call for the record and quash the proceedings in r)ri-me No. 2634 of 2025, dated 12-11-2025, on the file of the Gachibowli potice r tation, cyberabad for the offences punishable under section 318(4), 336(2), 336(:l , 338,'340(2) BNS and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and pioper in the circumstances of the case. ry/ i/ l.A. NO: 2 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 stay all the proceedings in Crime No. 2634 ol 2025, dated 12-11-2025, on the file of the Gachibowli Police Station, Cyberabad for the offences punishable under section 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) BNS. These Petitions coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitions and upon hearing the arguments of Sri E Venkata Siddhartha ,Advocate for the Petitioners in both CRLPs and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of Respondent No,'l in both CRLPs and none appeared for the Respondent Nos.2 in both CRLPs. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER I -i IN THB HTGH COURT FOR TIIE STATE OF 1' ]LANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOT]RABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREEI\I VAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.16084 and l6l l: of 2025 Datez 16.12.2025 Crl.I'.No. I 6084 of 2025 Betyrgg4 \,1r...\kula'I irumala Rcddl 'fhc Statc of felangana. Rep. b1 its l)ublic Prosecutor. High (lourt of Tclangana at Hvderabad and another. Crl.l'.No.l6l l5 of 2025 Betucen AND l'ctitioner llcspondents Mr.(i.Nagcsh yu,12.', (lii Llolla Nagesh and six others AND l)etilioncrs The State ol'1'elangana, Ilep. by its Public Plosecutor. I{igh C'ourt ol1-clan gana at []r'derabad and anolher. COMMON ORDER These Crirn inal Petitions filed seeking o quash the .Rcspondcnts proceedings in Crime No.2634 of 2025, on the file ol t re Gachibowli Police Station, Cyberabad, wherein the petitioners alrayed AS accused Nos.I to 7 and 12, lor the ofl'ences punishable r nder Sgctions (. n r ,;; ) 318(4), 336(2) and (3), 338 and 340(2) ofthe BharatiyaNyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for short 'BNS')

2. Heard Mr.E.Venkata Siddhartha, leamed counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla. learned Additional public Prosecutor for respondent No. I -State,

3. Leamed counsel for the petitioner.s submitted that the petitioners have not comrr itted the alleged offences and respondcnt No.2 has falsely implicatcd them in the present crime in order to settle civil disputes. He further submitted that the allegations made in the complaint are purely civil in rrature and respondent No.2 ought to have approached the competent Clivil Court to establislr her rights over the property. On the other hand. she has filed the present complaint by giving a criminal colour to a civil dispute.

3.1. He further submitted that the original o\vners, namely Kammari Narasimha Chary, Kammari Pandu, and Kammari Ashok, who were granted Occupancy Rights Certificates by the competent authority under the Telangana Abolition of Inams Act, I 955, executed a registered sale deed dated 11.02.2000. Subsequently, several transactions took place, and the petitioners never forged or fabricated an-v documents, as alleged by respondent No.2. Hence, the ingredients of Section 338 of the BNS 3 are not attracted against the petitioners and the othel rlfences alleged against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonr r :nt ol less than sevcn years. Thc Invcstigating Officer, with malafidc in ention, failed to follow the procedurc contemplated under Section 4l -;'r of the Criminal Procedure Codc, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.')/Sectior 35(3) of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita,2023 (for short'Bl. SS'), as well as the guidelincs Iaid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. Stute of Bihart. Therefore, the continuation of prcr :edings against the petitioners is a clear abuse of the process of law.

4. Per c'ontnr. the lealned Additional Public Prost:, utor submitted that there are spccific allegations against the petili)ners that the Occupancy Rights Ccrtificates issued in favour of Karnr rari Narasirnha Chary. Kammari Pandu. and Kammari Ashok wer r subsequentlv cance lled by thc appellate authority. He further submir r( d that, despite such cancellation. the petitioners continued to rely' rpon the said Occupancy Rights Ciertificates and executed several t ocurlents. [{e further submitted that even assuming that the ingredient:, rf Section 338 of the BNS are not attracted, the other offences leve I I rd against the petitioners zrre attracted. Whether the petitioners have omrnitted the otTences or not has to be revealed during the coursc ol investigation I(2014) 8 scc 273 4 Therefore, the petitioners are nol entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings at this stage

5. This Court considered the rival subnrissions made by the respective parties and perused the record. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the original owners, namely Kammari Narasimha Chary, Kammari pandu, and Kammari Ashok, executed a registered sale deed bearing Docurnenr No.969 ol- 2000, dated I 1.02.2000. Subsequently, severar other transactions took place. The said Karnmari Narasimha Cha.r1,, llurrrlari pandu, and Kalnmari Ashok are clainring rights based on the occupancy Rights cerrificates issued by the competent authority. Heuce, this coud is ol the considered view that the ingredients of Section 338 of the BNS are not altracted against the petitioners and the other offences levelled against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. Thereflore. 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 follow the guideiines issued by rhe Apex Court in Arnesh Kumor supra. 6 Irr view of the same, the petitioners/accused Nos.l to 7 and l2 are directed to appear before the Investi_gating Officcr, on or before f

29.12.2025, and on such appearance, the Investigating ( fhcer is entitled to issue notice under Section 4l-A of the Cr.P.C./Set t on 35(3) of the BNSS and follow the guidelines issued by the Apex ( lourt in Arnesh Kumar supra.

7. [t is made clear that the petitioners are ent tled to submit reply/explanation along with the documents, which alt available with them, to the lnvestigating Officcr.

8. lf the petitioners fail to appear before the Invest gating Officer, within the stipulated time, the Investigating Officer is :ntitled to take action against them in accordance with law.

9. Subject to the above directions, the Crimine I Petitions are disposed of. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall st nd closed. sD/- A H S jOWRt SHANKAR;- '-- / ASS|$'ANT REG|ST{AR. / \ n'.' //TRUE COPYII \\ \ \ ', :;EcroN oFFrcER \\\J To,

1. The X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate , Kukatpally at Fr lshanth nagar, Cyberabad

2. The station House Officer, Gachibowli Police Station, Cybe -abad 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at 4. One CC to SRI E VENKATA SIDDHARTHA, Advocate [Ol] JCI 5. Two CD Copies Hyderabad (OUT) ADK HIGH COURT DATED:1 611212025 COMMON ORDER l_^ ' 4 LrtL lilt'l '.a.. CRLP.Nos.16O84 and 16115 of 202*", , ...,.-i i:.-:'r'il-r ( ;:: i (:- | -i.. I. _1,._ ,i * ...;.' |," DISPOSING OF THE BOTH CRLPs e 5