The court upheld the investigation of serious allegations against the petitioner under BNSS, dismissing claims of false complaint due to legal advisor's misconduct.

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.3 seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondent No.2 in registering FIR No.483 of 2025, as arbitrary and unconstitutional and further to declare the complaint against the petitioner as null and void.

2. Heard Sri Balaiah B, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Maheswar Rajiv, learned Government Pleader for Home.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner discharges services to various authorities and that they would pay him on taking his legal advice and that the de facto complainant has utilized his services and has not paid, and just to escape the said liability, she filed a false complaint against him. He further submitted that the HYDRA Officials have called the petitioner to settle the matter which itself shows the wrongful involvement of the authorities, which is not at all required. He therefore, submitted that the complaint itself is false. The police have not followed the due process of law in registering the complaint and without following any procedure under Section 173 (3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’), they are trying to apprehend the petitioner. He therefore, prayed to declare the action of the respondents as unconstitutional and also to declare the complaint to be null and void.

4. Learned Government pleader for Home has submitted that the contents of the compliant do point out the allegations against the petitioner herein. It is alleged that one Chaitanya Pannala came to the office of the Commissioner, HYDRA and lodged a petition stating that she is the owner of the open land and that M/s. Vertex Developers had unlawfully laid a 150 feet road through her property without any prior permission from her and the Commissioner, HYDRA, endorsed the same to the ACP, HYDRA to enquire and report and that as a part of enquiry, it came to know that said Chaitanya Pannala had discussed about the encroachment issue with her cousin Mr. Praveen and her cousin introduced the petitioner stating that he is a legal advisor and that he would take care of the issue. The petitioner introduced his friend Chandu Srinivas stating that he has good connections with the HYDRA officials and inturn, the said Chandu Srinivas communicated with her over phone and assured that he will manage with the HYDRA. Believing that, she has given amount of Rs.20.00 lakhs to her cousin Praveen and Praveen told her that he will hand it over to the petitioner herein. It is further alleged that in the last week of June, 2025, the petitioner went to her house located at Maheshwaram and asked her to pay the remaining amount of Rs.30.00 lakhs, but she postponed to give him the money as the said day was Amavasya and on the following day, the petitioner sent a person to her house for collecting the money and at that time, she made a phone call to the petitioner and confirmed that the person came to her house was sent by the petitioner only and thus, believing the said words, she has handed over the total cash of Rs.30.00 lakhs to him. With the said allegations, the ACP, HYDRA has addressed a letter to the Station House Officer, Pahadi Shareef Police Station, Rachakonda, requesting him to take legal action against the individuals mentioned therein i.e. Praveen, Sunkari Naresh and Chandu Srinivas. The petitioner herein is accused No.3.

5. Learned Government Pleader for Home submitted that the allegations in the complaint do point out against the petitioner herein and the said allegations need to be investigated into and as the investigation is in progress, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the matter per