The court emphasized the necessity of a notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS for offences punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years.

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNSS ’), seeking quashment of the proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No. 617 of

2025 of Shadnagar Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate.

2. The petitioner is sole accused in Crime No. 617 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 303 (2), 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNS ’).

3. Heard Mr.Gafar Mahammad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing respondent No.1-State.

4. The prosecution case in brief is that respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged report alleging that the petitioner worked as driver with her, assisted with Bank activities, had took her cheque book, which was issued in the year 2015 by the Bank of India. As per respondent No.2/de facto complainant only four leaves of the Cheque Book were used and remaining were lost. Subsequently, upon filing of cheque bounce case against her and allegedly harassing her to extort money, she lodged report against the petitioner/accused.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the de facto complainant had borrowed Rs.9,75,000/- from him and issued post dated cheque as security, which was bounced upon presentment. Further, to evade repayment and to pressurize the petitioner, the complainant foisted the false case with delay alleging the cheque was stolen. Thus, invocation of criminal proceedings is untenable and prayed for quashment of the proceedings. Further, pleads that the elements of theft or criminal intimidation/extortion are not made out even accepting the complainant. Further, by suppressing material facts and without there being any information to the Banker about the alleged loss of cheque book only to avoid repayment the financial transaction, which is in civil nature, has been falsely projected as criminal case. Hence, prayed for quashment of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.

6. After making submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that although grounds exist for seeking quashment of the proceedings, the petitioner is determined to allow the process to run its course. However, he expressed apprehension of coercive action by the Police, emphasizing that no notice under Section 35 (3) of the BNSS has been served upon the petitioner. He submitted that the alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, and therefore, service of such notice is mandatory. Learned counsel accordingly prayed that appropriate directions be issued to the concerned police officials to ensure compliance with Section 35 (3) of the BNSS , which, if granted, would adequately redress the petitioner’s grievance.

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, in response, submitted that the police report specifically narrates the offences alleged and records the petitioner’s involvement therein. He further submitted that issues concerning theft and extortion are matters for investigation and that, at this stage, it would be inappropriate to conclude the falsity of the case solely on the petitioner’s assertions. Nonetheless, the learned Prosecutor did not raise any specific objection to the petitioner’s prayer for issuance of a notice under Section 35 (3) of the BNSS .

8. I have perused the materials on record.

9. Considering the imputations made against the petitioner, the existence of a prima facie case warranting investigation, and the fact that the alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment for a term of less than seven years, and further taking into account the petitioner’s willingn