Izman Ahmed @ Mohammed lzman & Anr. v. The State ofTelangana & Anr.

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad 2 Sri Hameed l)zzama Khan, S/o.Late Mohammed Khursheed Zama Khan, Aged 55 years, occ Business, R:/o.H.No.'1 1-5-416i1l8, Red Hills, Hyderabad- 500001 , Telangana State. ...Respondents 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 Crime No.406 of 2025 of P.S., Chaderghat against the petitioners in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C 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 the arrest of the Petitioners in Crime No. 406.of 2025 ol P.S., Chaderghat in the interest of justice. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Ms.Asra Fatima, Advocate representing Sri Safdar Mirza, Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additionat Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HTGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TI) ,ANGANA ATHYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENI\ AS RAO CzuMINAL PETITION No.l72l7 of 20'.Li Date:19.12.2025 Between: Izman Ahmed @ Mohammed lzmanand another ...petitioners/acctLr ed Nos.l & 2 AND The State of Telangana, Represented by the Public Prose :utor, High Court at Hyderabad, and another ..respondents Order This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash th : proceedings in Crime No.406 of 2025, on the file of Chaderghat ? rlice Station, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.l nd 2, for the offences punishable under Sections 118(1), 351(2) of he Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha,2023 (for short 'BNS')

Heard Ms. Asra Fatima, learned counsel, repr :senting Mr. Safdar Mirza, leamed counsel for the petitioners ancl Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor fi ,r respondent No.1-State. -..* 2 !-r \ \ +:--

Leamed counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not committed alleged offence and they are falsely implicated in the present crime. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, do not attract the ingredients under Sections ll8(1), 351(2) of BNS. Hence, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse of process of law. The learned counsel fuither submitted that the father of petitioner No.l filed a suit vide O.S.No.1392 of 2025 on the file of VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court seeking partition and separate possession and the same is pending. The respondent No.2 has filed the present complaint to resolve the civil disputes pending between the petitioners and respondent No.2ldefocto complainant. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners has raised several grounds, but he restricted his prayer, requesting the Court to direct the Investigating Off, rcer to follow the 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 formulated by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumqr Vs. State of Biharr . tzo14) 8 scc 273 i 3

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor subrr tted that the offence leveled against the petitioners are prr rishable with imprisonment below seven years, whether the pe :itioners have committed the offence or not has to be revealed after a full-fledged investigation. The Investigating Officer will a r : follow the procedure as contemplated under law.

Taking into consideration the facts and circurr; tances of the case and the submissions made by the respective prr ties and upon perusal of the record, it reveals that the offences levr: ed against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment below s,< ven years and the Investigating Officer ought to have followed th: procedure by issuing notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C/Section .] ;(3) of BNSS. The Investigating Officer is directed to issue notice rnder Section 41-A of Cr.P.C.iSection 35(3) of BNSS and follow he guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar supra.

It is made clear that the petitioners are entit ed to submit reply/explanation along with the documents, which art' rvaitable with them, to the Investigating Officer 7 . Subject to the above directions, the Criminr I Petition is disposed of. ::4:: Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. "3P,1+H;3+itB_ _ -7 //TRUE COPYII EGTION OFFICER To,

The Vilt Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Nam pally 2. The Station House Officer Chade rghat Police Station , Hyderabad 3. Two CCs to the Public prosecutor, High Court for the state of Telangana, at 4. One CC to Sri 5. TWo CD Co Safdar Mirza, Advocate IOPUC] Hvderabad. [OUTl Svs/ABK ry.- HIGH COURT DATED:1 911212025 ORDER I I .'/ L! 'd- CRLP.No.17217 of 2025 0r i .s S) + Her H + o 1' '_! f: i DISPOSING OF THE CRLP \1/.