IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6254 of 2025

30.03.2026 Between:

Syed Shamshuddin …Petitioner/accused No.3 AND The State of Telangan, Represented by Inspector of Police, Kachiguda Police Station, Hyderabad, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad, and another …Respondents

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”) seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/A3 in C.C.No.2298 of 2024 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad.

2. Heard Sri K.Devanath, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.3, Sri Dr. Surepalli Prashanth, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1–State and Sri M.Ram Singh, learned counsel representing Sri Mohd Anwar Ali, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.3 in the above calendar case registered for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC. It is contended that the said offence is non-cognizable in nature and the police, without obtaining prior permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate as mandated under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, registered the case, conducted investigation and filed charge sheet.

4. It is further submitted that investigation conducted in a non- cognizable offence without permission of the Magistrate is illegal and without jurisdiction and therefore continuation of criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of process of law. Hence, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/de-facto complainant submits that the complaint discloses prima facie allegations against the petitioner and the learned Magistrate, upon consideration of the material available on record, has rightly taken cognizance of the offence. It is contended that disputed questions of fact cannot be examined in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS and the matter requires trial.

6. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the proceedings in C.C.No.2298 of 2024 are liable to be quashed for non-compliance of Section 155(2) Cr.P.C.?

7. Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under:

“No police officer shall investigate a non- cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial.”

8. A plain reading of the above provision makes it clear that prior permission of the Magistrate is mandatory before investigation into a non-cognizable offence.

9. In the present case, the offence alleged against the petitioner under Section 506 IPC is admittedly non-cognizable in nature. The material placed before this Court does not disclose that the police obtained permission from the competent Magistrate before undertaking investigation.

10. When a statute mandates a particular procedure, the same has to be strictly followed. Investigation conducted contrary to Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. is without authority of law and the charge sheet filed pursuant thereto cannot be sustained. Continuation of proceedings based on such investigation would amount to abuse of process of Court and therefore warrants interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.3 in C.C.No.2298 of 2024 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.

___________________________

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA,J Date:30.03.2026 aqs THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6254 of 2025

30.03.2026 AQS