Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 13967
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
J. Sreenivas Rao, J
Seeloju Shiva Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5635 and 5738 of 2026
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR
Act Referred
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: S.108, S.3(5), S.109, S.45
Constitution of India: Art.226
Code of Criminal Procedure: S.482
Indian Penal Code: S.306, S.107
Headnote
(B) Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Scope of Jurisdiction - High Court's power under Section 528 BNSS (formerly Section 482 CrPC) to quash proceedings is limited and should not be exercised at the threshold when a cognizable offence is disclosed and the investigation is still in progress. (Para 14, 15)
Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings under Section 108 of the BNS should be quashed against the petitioners on the grounds that their actions did not constitute abetment to suicide.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: B. Pavan, Kasoju Mahesh Chary, G. Ashok Reddy
For the Respondents: Jithender Rao Veeramalla
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background involving allegations of character assassination leading to suicide. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding professional duties of advocates and journalists versus criminal abetment. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. evaluation of prima facie evidence including suicide notes and witness statements. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. distinction between casual harassment and active instigation in abetment of suicide. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. limited scope of judicial interference in ongoing investigations of cognizable offences. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? Yes/No
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No
_______________________
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
Seeloju Shiva Kumar
S/o.Seeloji Blaram Chary
Aged: about 35 years, Occ: Advocate,
R/o.316,112/2/3, Ram reddy Nagar,
Ramanthapur, Amberpet,
Hyderabad, Telamgama – 500013
….Petitioner
VERSUS
The State of Telangana
Represented through Public Prosecutor
High Court for the State of Telangana
At Hyderabad and another
… Respondents
Counsel for Petitioner/s : Mr. B. Pavan
Mr. Kasoju Mahesh Chary
Counsel for Respondents : Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor (R.1)
GIST:
HEAD NOTE:
CITATIONS:
1. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 120
2. 1992 supp (1) SCC 355
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5635 and 5738 of 2026
DATE: 21.04.2026
Between :
Seeloju Shiva Kumar
....Petitioner/Accused No.7
In Crl.P.No.5635 of 2026
Sri Madupathi Vedhanth Swamy
....Petitioner/Accused No.6
In Crl.P.No.5738 of 2026
AND
The State of Telangana and another.
....Respondents
: COMMON ORDER :
1. Crl.P.Nos.5635 and 5738 of 2026 have been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNSS’), by accused No.7 and accused No.6 respectively, seeking to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.194 of 2026 of Pocharam IT Corridor Police Station, Malkajgiri District, registered for the offence under Section 108 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNS’). Hence, both the criminal petitions are being heard together and are disposed of by this common order.
2. Brief facts of the case:
2.1. On 10.04.2026 at about 13:30 hours, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint stating that she was blessed with two daughters and one son and has been earning her livelihood through a flower business. Her elder daughter (deceased) is pursuing M.Sc. She further stated that her sister-in-law, i.e., accused No.2, and accused No.2’s husband was suffering from HIV/AIDS and he died in the year 2008 due to the said disease. After his death, accused No.2 has been residing at RK Colony, Annojiguda, along with her two sons, namely accused Nos.1 and 3. In the month of August 2025, her deceased daughter informed that accused No.1 was in love with her and intended to marry her. At that stage, she informed to her deceased daughter that the father of accused No.1 died due to HIV/AIDS and she apprehended that accused No.1 might also be infected. Hence, she insisted on conducting an HIV test before proceeding with the marriage and accordingly got tested both accused No.1 and her deceased daughter. The test results revealed that accused No.1 was HIV positive, whereas her deceased daughter tested negative. Upon knowing this, she advised her deceased daughter about the seriousness of the disease and risks transmission. Thereafter, her deceased daughter changed her decision and refused to marry accused No.1. Due to this, accused No.1 developed a grudge against her deceased daughter. On 11.03.2026, when her deceased daughter was alone at her h
