SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 19477

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J
Kishangopal Boob – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8545 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms.Mandala Supriya
For the Respondents: Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla

The court emphasized adherence to procedural guidelines in criminal investigations while quashing an appeal.

Headnote:This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the petitioners seeking to quash proceedings in Crime No.10 of 2025. It is asserted that false allegations do not meet the criteria for offences stated. The court finds the submission valid and instructs adherence to established procedural guidelines in the investigation while allowing the petitioners to cooperate. It is ruled that the Criminal Petition is disposed of with these observations.

Table of Content
1. filing of the criminal petition under specific sections. (Para 1)
2. arguments presented by both sides regarding the petition. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
3. court's observation on the procedural aspects and conclusion. (Para 5 , 6)

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short ‘ BNS S ’) by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 and 6 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in Crime No.10 of 2025 on the file of Tandur Town Police Station, Vikarabad District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 137 (2), 329 (4), 115 (2), 352 and 351 (2) r/w. 3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 (for short ‘ BNS ’).

2. Heard Mr.K.Sai Krishna, learned counsel representing Ms.Mandala Supriya, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are facing false allegations and that the ingredients of the complaint itself do not attract the offences of kidnapping or trespass. Even if the complaint is taken to be true, the petitioners had merely gone to demand the chit amount, and nothing more can be made out from the complaint. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that a notice under Section 3 5 (3) of BNSS has already been served on the petitioners and that they have submitted their response.

5. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions of both counsel, the Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the Investigating Officer to follow the procedure laid down under Section 3 5 (3) of the BNSS (previously section 41-A of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) and also the guidelines formulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar , [(2014) 8 SCC 273] scrupulously. However, the petitioners shall submit their defense 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 the Investigating Officer shall consider the same and complete the investigation strictly in accordance with law.

6. With the above said observations, this Criminal Petition is disposed of.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top