##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

CRIMINAL PETITION No.17325 of 2025

Date: 22.12.2025

Between:

Basameni Anandam

...Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,

Through the Station House Officer,

Pocharam IT Corridor Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate,

High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and another.

...Respondents

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the

proceedings in FIR No.431 of 2025, on the file of the Police Station,

Pocharam IT Corridor, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as accused,

for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’).

2. Heard Mr. Bhargava Krishna. L, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.

::2::

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has

not committed the offence and he was falsely implicated in the

present crime. Even according to the allegations made in the

complaint, the ingredients for the offence under Section 316(2) and

318(4) of BNS are not attracted. The nature of the allegations are

purely civil in nature. One, G. Madhusudhana Prasad filed a suit on

the file of II Junior Civil Judge, Malkajgiri District, at L.B. Nagar

vide O.S.No.771 of 2023 seeking Perpetual Injunction restraining the

defendants from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment

of the suit schedule property. In the said suit, the plaintiff has

specifically mentioned that he purchased the subject property from

the vendor of the petitioner herein. In the said suit, respondent

No.2/defacto complainant herein was also made party as respondent

No.5 therein. When the said civil suit is pending, respondent

No.2/defacto complainant has filed the present complaint against the

petitioner and the same is contrary to law. Hence the continuation of

proceedings against the petitioner in respect of the same allegations is

a clear abuse of process of law.

4. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that

the allegations leveled against the petitioner are punishable with

::3::

imprisonment below seven years. The investigating officer has

already issued notice under Section 35 (3) of BNSS on 01.12.2025,

for which the petitioner has submitted a detailed reply on 03.12.2025

along with the documents, which are available with him, to the

Investigating Officer. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for seeking

quashing of the proceedings at this stage.

5. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective

parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals

that the offences levelled against the petitioner is punishable with an

imprisonment of less than seven years. The learned Additional Public

Prosecutor submitted that the investigating officer has already issued

notice under Section 35 (3) of BNSS on 01.12.2025, for which the

petitioner has submitted a detailed reply on 03.12.2025, by enclosing

all the documents which are available with him.

6. In view of the same, the Investigating Officer is directed to

scrupulously follow the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in

Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, 1(2014) 8 SCC 273 , and file the final report, as

expeditiously as possible.

::4::

7. Subject to the above direction, the Criminal Petition is disposed

of.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

__________________________

JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

Date: 22.12.2025

ggd