IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.4552 of 2026 Date: 30.03.2026 Between:

Rajat Gupta ...Petitioner/Accused AND The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, At High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad-500066.

Through Station House Officer, Cyber Crime Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate and another.

...Respondents

Order:

This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (for short ‘the BNSS’) by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.1036 of 2023 of Cyber Crime Police Station, Rachakonda, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’) and Sections 66-C and 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000-2008 (for short ‘ the IT Act’).

2. With the consent of both the learned counsel, this matter is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.

3. Heard Mr. G. Santhosh Pawan Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offences and he has been falsely implicated in the present crime. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint or final report, the ingredients of the offences under Sections 406, 419 and 420 of the IPC and Sections 66-C and 66-D of the IT Act are not attracted against the petitioner. The offences leveled against the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment up to seven years. However, the Investigating Officer, without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, 1(2014) 8 SCC 273, the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Md. Asfak Alam v. The State of Jharkhand & another (Crl.A.No.2207 of 2023) dated 31.07.2023, and also the circular issued by this Court in ROC.No.1399/SO/2023 dated 09.08.2023, is proceeding with the investigation, which is contrary to law.

5. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations levelled against the

petitioner that the petitioner is involved in cyber crimes and the investigation is under progress. At this juncture, whether the petitioner role is there or not, the same has to be revealed during the course of investigation. However, basing upon the written instructions dated 30.03.2026 furnished by the Inspector of Police, CCPS, Malkajgiri, submitted that the petitioner approached the learned Trial Court and filed application for grant of anticipatory bail and the said application was dismissed on 31.07.2024. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings against him.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that Investigating Officer is trying to serve the notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS to the accused, but the accused is not coming forward to the Police Station to receive the same. He further submitted that the Investigating Officer will follow the procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra) and requested this Court to direct the petitioner to cooperate with the investigation.

7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the offences levelled against petitioner/accused are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. Thus, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, the petitioner/accused is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer, on or before 10.04.2026, and on such appearance, the Investigating Officer is entitled to issue notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C./Section 35(3) of BNSS and foll