Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 16053
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J
Bheemashetty Uday Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10879 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri T.Sanjay Reddy
For the Respondents: Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla
The guidelines mandated for police investigations must be strictly followed, ensuring defendants' rights and procedural integrity.
Headnote:This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashal of proceedings in Crime No.1280 of 2024 regarding alleged kidnapping under Section 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner contended that the complainant's daughter, being of majority age, does not warrant charges of kidnapping. The State argued that investigation is ongoing. The Court directed the Investigating Officer to adhere to guidelines from Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, ensuring that the petitioner cooperates with the ongoing investigation. The Criminal Petition is disposed of accordingly.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks to quash due to false allegations based on victim's age. (Para 1 , 5) |
| 2. arguments presented by both counsel regarding investigation status. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's decision to dispose of the petition. (Para 6) |
ORDER
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short ‘ BNS S ’) by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings against him in Crime No.1280 of 2024 on the file of Jagadgirigutta Police Station, Cyberabad, for the alleged offences punishable under Section 137 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 (for short ‘ BNS ’).
2. Heard Sri T.Sanjay Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is facing false allegations that the daughter of the de- facto complainant was kidnapped by the petitioner. However, it is submitted that the daughter of defacto-complainant is a major, and therefore, the offence of kidnapping does not attract. He further submitted that the petitioner is harassed by the Police by being repeatedly summoned to the police station, and that the F.I.R. itself is not maintainable. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that notice is already served on the petitioner under Section 35 (3) of BNSS and that the investigation is still in progress. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.
5. Perused the record. The contents of the complaint reveal that the daughter of the de-facto complainant was school going girl and studying 10th class at Rajadhani High School. The investigation is still in progress. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a copy of the Date of Birth certificate of the daughter of the de-facto complainant showing that she is a major as on the date of the complaint. However, notice under Section 35 (3) of BNSS was already served to the petitioner on 22.08.2025. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the Investigating Officer to follow the guidelines formulated by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar , [(2014) 8 SCC 273] scrupulously and the petitioner shall submit his explanation and co-operate with the Investigating Officer as and when required by furnishing information and produce all relevant documents/material required for the purpose of the investigation and in turn, the Investigating Officer shall consider the same and shall complete the investigation strictly in accordance with law.
6. Accordingly this Criminal Petition is disposed of.
