For offences punishable by less than seven years, the Investigating Officer must strictly adhere to the procedural requirements of Section 35(3) of the BNSS and the guidelines established in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar to prevent arbitrary arrests.

ORDER

This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.45 of 2026 of Urkonda Police Station, Nagarkurnool District, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 22, for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 329(3) and 324(4) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’).

2. Heard Mr.G.Bandaiah, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent No.1 – State.

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 submitted that the petitioners have not committed the alleged offences and have been falsely implicated in the present case. The allegations levelled against the petitioners are purely civil in nature. The father of respondent No.2/de-facto complainant had himself alienated the property through a Sadabainama as early as in the year 1992. Subsequently, the vendor executed a gift settlement deed in favour of Bandigaiah in respect of the said land. The petitioners and others have constructed a small temple in the name of Renuka Yellamma and have been performing poojas. The name of the said temple has also been recorded as the owner of the property in the revenue records. He further submitted that respondent No.2, having no manner of right over the property, has filed the present complaint by giving a criminal colour. He further submitted that the offences levelled against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment for a term of less than seven years. The Investigating Officer, without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), as well as the guidelines formulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar , (2014) 8 SCC 273, is proceeding with the matter, which is contrary to law.

5. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners that they have trespassed into the subject property of respondent No.2, and when they tried to occupy the same, respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint. Whether the allegations levelled in the complaint are true or not has to be revealed during the course of investigation. However, the offences levelled against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment for a term of less than seven years, and when the Investigating Officer tried to serve notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, the petitioners did not come forward to receive the notice and have not cooperated with the investigation.

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that there are specific allegations against the petitioners that they are trying to occupy the subject property as claimed by respondent No.2. The petitioners are claiming rights over the land based on an alleged Sadabainama dated 01.02.1992, said to have been executed by the father of respondent No. 2, and also on the basis of the revenue records. Whether the allegations levelled in the complaint are true or not has to be revealed during the course of investigation, particularly as the investigation is still in progress. The record further reveals that the offences levelled against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. Even according to the learned