The court held that FIRs cannot be quashed if prima facie allegations exist, but the Investigating Officer must strictly follow Section 35(3) of BNSS and Arnesh Kumar guidelines for offences carrying a sentence of less than seven years.

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4542 of 2026

Date: 02.04.2026

Between:

Mohammed Shafi and (06) others ...Petitioners

AND

The State of Telangana, Through S.H.O., P.S. Jagtial Town,

rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad

and another.

...Respondents

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed by the

petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 6, 9 and 13, seeking to quash the FIR No.291 of 2022 on the file of Jagtial Town Police Station at Jagtial District for the offences under Section

353 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

2. Heard Mr.Shaik Muhammed Abed, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for

respondent No.1.

2

3. With the consent of both the learned counsel, the

criminal petition is disposed of at the admission stage.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not committed the alleged offences and they have been falsely implicated in the present case. The petitioners visited the Police Station on 04.07.2022, to enquire about one Shaik Sajid @ Sajju, who was taken into police custody in connection with Crime No.290 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 505 (ii) of IPC, 1860, on the ground that the said Shaik Sajid circulated news through Whatsapp messages. The petitioners have not influenced the investigation nor made any allegations against respondent No.2/de facto complainant. The allegations made in the complaint do not attract the ingredients of Section 353 read with 34 of IPC. He further submitted that the Crime No.290 of 2022, which was registered against the said Shaik Sajid was quashed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.3614 of 2026 on 23.03.2026. Hence, continuation of proceedings against

the petitioner is clear abuse of process of law.

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

3

the petitioners to attract the ingredients for the offence under Section 353 of IPC. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of LWs.1 to 10, wherein, all the witnesses specifically mentioned about the role of the petitioners and the investigation is under progress. He further submitted that the Investigating Officer have already served notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) to the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 5 on 20.03.2026 and intends to follow the very same procedure in respect of other accused. He further submitted that the nature of allegations levelled in Crime No.290 of 2022 are different and in the present Crime No.291 of 2022 are different. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled for quashing of proceedings, merely on the ground that this Court quashed the proceedings in Crime No.290 of 2022 against the said

Sajid in Criminal Petition No.3614 of 2026 on 23.03.2026. 6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that basing on the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, the present Crime No.290 of 2021 was registered against the petitioners on 04.07.2022.

4

There are specific allegations levelled against the petitioners and the said allegations prima facie attract the ingredients of the offence under Section 353 of IPC, wherein, the allegations levelled in the present complaint are not similar to the allegations made in Crime No.290 of 2022. According to the learned