The High Court · 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 quash FIR No 64/2025 dated 12.09.2025, registered at Economic Offences Wing Cyb (Cyberabad) police station. 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 further proceedings including investigation and arrest in pursuance of FIR No 6412025 dated 12.09.2025, registered at Economic Offences Wing Cyb (Cyberabad) police station. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M.V. Pratap Kumar, representing Sri C. Naren Sai,Advocate for the Petitioner, 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 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF l ELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREIT VIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1697O Of '1025 Date: L7.L2.2O25 Between Mr. Patibandla Rambabu AND The State of Telangana. Represented b1, Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad arrd another. Petitioner -. espondents ORDER This Criminal Petition is hled seekinr to quash the proceedings in Crime No.64 of 2025, r.tr thc file o[ the Econornic Oflences Wing (Cyberalr rd) Police Station, Cyberabad District, u,herein the pt. Itoner was arrayed as :rccused No.3, for the offences 1 unishable under Sections 318(4), 316(21, 316(5), ar.lJ, 336(3), 340(21r/w 6l(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhithz ,2023

2. Heard Mr. M.V.Pratap Kumar, learn,r,I counsei representing N{r. C.Naren Sai, learned cour.r:el lbr the #dr GSll: I ) petitioner through Video Conference and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional public prosecutor for respondent No. 1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that the petitioner has purchased the property from the Developer/accused No.1 by paying valuable sale consideration and the petitioner 15a bona fi.de purchaser. The only allegation made in the complaint is that accused No. i alienated the propert5r pertaining to respondent No.2's share in favour of petitioner/accused No.3. The petitioner, therefore, is a victim rather than an accused. The essential ingredients of the offences under 318(4), 3L6(2), 316(5), 338, 336(3),340(2) rlw 61(21 of the BNS do not attract against the petitioner, especially the allegations purely civil in nature. Hence, continuation of u!; 3 proceedings against the petitioner is a c1,: rr abuse of process of law.

4. Per contra, learned Additional Publir: Prosecutor submitted that the offences under Sections 116(5), 338 may not attract against the petitioncr ar-rd other offences are applicable to him and the peti: oner is not entitled to sr:ek quashment at the ir , tial stage, especially, when the investigation is under ll-ogress.

5. Having considered the rival submissior s made by the respective parties and upon perusal of llLe material available on re<:ord, it reveals that there ar( 1cl speciflic allegations against the petitioner to ir tract the ingredients under Sections 316(5) and 3:8 of BNS especially the petitioner purchased the pr<: 1,ert1. lor a total consideration Rs.99,0O,00O/- an<i paid amount of Rs. 78, OO,OOO/- to the develop, :-/accused No.7 and he is a bona fide purchaser. II:nce, this Court is of the view that the this Court is ,r- the view ---.- tsts,: 4 that pima facie offence under Sectrlon 316(5) and 33g of BNS may not attract and tbr the ottrer offences the punishment prescribed is less than seven years. Hence, this Court is of considered view Investigating Officer ought to have follor.ted ihe procedure AS contemplated under Section 4l-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. 1973 (for short,'Cr.p.C.)/Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS) and also the .guidelines flormulated by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihol,r.

6. For the foregoing reasons, the Investigating Ofhcer is directed to issue notice under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C./Section 35(3) of the BNSS and follow the guidelines issued by the Apex Court tn Antesh Kumar supra. On such notice, the petitioner is entitled to submit reply/explanation by raising ail the pleas which were available to him ancl also he is entitled to enclose '(2014) 8 scc 273 f, the documents, which are in his posses sion to the Investigating Officer along with reply and tl Le petitioner is directed [o co operate with the investigr]: on,

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is tl sposed of Miscellaneous applications, pending r' any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD'. UI.OSMAN ALI BAIG s{ iTANT REGISTRAR ASn \ \=crtoru oFFtcER To, VTI 1 . The Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Metropolitan Ma I strate' Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar 2,ThestationHouseofficer,EconomicoffencesVingPoliceStaion Cyberabad, CYberabad District. 3, Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the l tate of Telangana at Hyderabad IOUTI

4. One CC to Sri C. Naren Sai, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies HIGH COURT DATED: 1711212025 .l c 1a o a :-=--- I.i I i t.-\. r Llc.\ -,<\ \\ I 0 t, lUli :i .9.) .l 2 ^. 4 T -..,r.'] ORDER CRLP.No.16970 of 2025 c:) i9. .'i9 \\.* .\: DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION q