IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.3282 of 2026 Date: 09.03.2026 Between:

Shiva Shankar Babu ...Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana Through P.S. Chunchupalli and another.

...Respondents

ORDER

This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.12 of 2026 of Chunchupalli Police Station, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as the sole accused for the offences punishable under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) and Section 66- D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 – 2008 (for short ‘IT Act’).

2. Heard Ms.K.Aashaya, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the alleged offences took place on 19.06.2025 and 12.08.2025, whereas respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint after a lapse of a long period, on 20.01.2026, without giving any explanation for the said delay. She further submitted that P.S.Chunchupalli does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 and to register the crime. Even according to the complaint, the allegations pertains to monetary transactions and the petitioner has not received any amount. Hence, the ingredients of the offences under Section 318(4) of the BNS and Section 66-D of the IT Act, are not attracted against the petitioner. She further submitted that the offences levelled against the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. She further submitted that the Investigating Officer, without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) and without following the guidelines formulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar , is proceeding further in the matter and the same is contrary to law.

4. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that specific allegations are levelled against the petitioner. The father of the victim lodged a complaint and specifically stated that he had sent amounts through PhonePe on various dates to the petitioner. The petitioner allegedly gave a false promise that he would provide employment to his son and, on that pretext, received a huge amount from him and also issued a fabricated appointment order. It is further submitted that there was a clear dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner from the very inception and, therefore, the ingredients of the offence under Section 318(4) of the BNS are attracted against him. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings.

5. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the de facto complainant has made specific allegations against the petitioner that he paid amounts on various dates through PhonePe and the petitioner received the said amounts by giving a false promise that he would provide employment to the complainant’s son. It is further alleged that the petitioner issued a

1(2014) 8 SCC 273

fake ID card and also a fabricated appointment order. When the complainant questioned the petitioner, the petitioner did not give any proper answer. The said allegations clearly disclose that, with a dishonest intention, the petitioner received amounts by giving false promises and issued a fake appointment order. Whether the allegations made in the complaint are true or not are disputed questions of fact, and have to be revealed during the course of investigation.

6. It is tr