Mukesh Panwar, v. The State of Telangana,
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-04-24. Mukesh Panwar, v. The State of Telangana,. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
\\ [ 3303 I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6397 OF 2026 Between: Mukesh Panwar,, S/o. Poonam Chand Panwar, Aged about 55 years, Occ: B usi ness, R/o. H. No. 4-2-322, Su ltan Bazar, Hyderabad ... Petitioner/Accused No. 2 AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep,by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, At Hyderabad. 2. P. Jangaiah Goud, Occ: Sub-lnspector of^Police, Chikkadpally Police Station, Hyderabad District. ... Res pondents/Com plaina nt Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition; the High Court may be pleased to quash the FIR No. 116 of 2026 of P. S. Chikkadpally, Hyderabad District dated 7-4-2026 as against the petitioner / Accused No. 2 as abuse of process of law. l. A.
NO: 2 OF 2026 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay all further proceedings including arrest of the petitioner / Accused No. 2 in FIR No. 116 of 2026 of P. S. Chikkadpally, Hyderabad District dated 7-4-2026 pending disposal of the Criminal petition. i i This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Crirrinal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Rahul Bhati, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the Additional Public Prosecutor on br:half of the Respondents. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HIGH FOR THE STATE F AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMIN PETITION No. 6397 of 2026 Date 24. 04. 2O26 Between: Mukesh Panwar . Petitioner AND The State of Telangana and another .
Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in F. I. R. No. l16 of 2O26 of Chikkadpally Police Station, Hyderabad, wherein the petitioner was alrayed as accused No. 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 274 and 318(4) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS'). 2. Heard Mr. Rahul Bhai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed the alleged offence and has been falsely*=iqgRlicated in the present case Even according to the :l allegatiors made in the complaint, the ingredients for the offences under sections 274 and 318(4) r/w 3(5) of the BNS. Hence, the Continuation of proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse -offences alleged of process of law. He further submitted that .
the against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. The Investigating Officer, without following the mandatorry procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiy,a Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') and without following the guidetines formulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. Stote of Bihart, i. proceeding further in the matter and the same is contrary to law. 4; In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitione:r retied upon the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ram Nath v. State of Uttar Ptudesh and othersz. 5. Pp-r contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner, namely that the petitioner, along with other accused, adulterated food products, and the ingredients of the said offences are attracted against the petitioner.
whether the allegations levelled I 8 scc 273 '1zor+; 21zoz+'13 scc so2 in the complaint are true or not has to be revealed during the course of investigation, especially as the investigation is still in progress. However, the learned Additional Pubtic Prosecutor fairly submitted that the offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, and the lnvestigating Officer has already issued notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS to accused No. l. He further submitted that the Investigating Officer will follow the same procedure in respect of the petitioner herein. 6. By way of reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will appear before the Investigating Officer, cooperate with the investigation, and submit his. reply/explanation along with relevant documents. 7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the Iespective parties and after.
perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the offences levelled against the petitioner are \ \ punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. Even according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the Investigating Officer had already issued notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS to accused No. l and the lnvestigating officer will follow the same procedure in respect of the petitioner. 8. In view of the same, the petitioner/accused No. 2 is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer, on or before 03. 05. 2026, and on such appearance, the lnvestigating Officer is entitled to issue ngtice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS.
The petitioner is entitled to submit reply/explanation along with the documents, which erre available with him to the [nvestigating Officer' The Investigating Officer is entitled to strictly fotlow the procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the BNSS, as well as the guidelirLes formulated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra). 9 Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of' lvliscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD'- P. C. SULEKHA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY'I SECTION OFFICER To, i . The lX Arlditional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Chikadpally Police Station, Hyderabad. 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] / \ 4. One CC to Sri Rahul Bhati, Advocate IOPUC] *o/ 5. Two CD Copies ? , Sa/KA I I ;t . i il . :j ,H#E . ffi n'/ e HIGH COURT DATED: 2410412'. 026 \ \ / I . ] ORDER CRLP. No.
6397 of 2026 U 2 s APR 2026 * * DISPOSING OI= THE CRIMINAL PETITION @ i : t I I
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.