Kariyavula Mahesh 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 2026-04-20. Kariyavula Mahesh v. The state of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[ ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5930 OF 2026 Between: '1. Kariyavula Mahesh, S/o Late Venkaiah Aged About 45 Years, Occ Pvt Employee R/o Brigade Citadel, Flat No. D-509, Desmond Block, Survey No. 78 and 79, Meter Factory, Ashok Marg, Sultan Bagh, Motinagar, Medchal Malkajgiri District, Telangana State-500018. 2. Kariyavula Kalyani, Wo Kariyavula Mahesh, Aged About 36Years, Occ R/o Brigade Citadel, Flat No, D-509. Desmond Block, Survey No. 78 and 79, Meter Factory, Ashok Marg, Sultan Bagh, Motinagar, Medchal Malkajgiri District, Telangana State-50001 8 ... Petitioner/Accused No. 1 & 2 AND 1. The state of Telangana, , Rep by its Public Prosecutor. High Court for the State of Telangana Hyderabad 2.
Naredla Shirisha, Wo Raghavendra Aged aboul 42 years Occ: Employee in Deloitte, R/o Brigade Citadel Flat No A2 1127 Austin Block Meter Factory Ashok Marg Sultan Bagh Motinagar Medchal Malkajgiri District Telangana State 5000'18. ... Respo ndenUC om pla in a 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 proceedings as against the petitioners/accused No. 'l and 2 in FIR No. 32,2026. dated 1910112026, on the file of tlre Sanathnagar P. S Cyberabad for the offences under Section 75 and 79 of BNS. I. A. NO: 2OF 2026 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS pra'ring that in the circumstances stated in the ltr'lemorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings as against the petitioners/accused No 1 &2 in FIR No. 32 of 2026. dated 19101/2026, on the file of the sanathnagar p.
S cyberabad for the offences under section 75 & 79 of BNS, pending disposal of the above criminal Petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri A samir Kumar Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional public Prosecutor on behalf of Respondent No. 'l and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2 The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FoRTHE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5930 of 2026 Date:20. 04. 2026 Between: Kariyalula Mahesh and another Petitioners/accused Nos. l and 2 AND The State of Telangana and anothcr Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition has been filcd sccking to quash the proceedings in F. I. R. No. 32 of 2026 p. S. of Sanathnagar. Cyberabad, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.
l and 2, for the offences punishable under Sections 79 and 75 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS'). 2. Heard Mr. A. Samir Kurnar Reddy. learned counsel lor the petitioners and Mr. Jithendar Rao Veerarnalla, leamed Additional public Prosecutor for respondent No. I . 3. Leamed counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed the alleged offences and that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. Even according to the allegations made in (/ tlrc complaint. thc ingredients of the olfences under j9 Sections o( BNS are not attractcd against the petitioners. IIe further submitted that thc oflcnces levellcd against the petitioncrs are punishable imprisonment of less than seven years. The Investigating r. r ithout follo*. ing the mandatory procedure prescribed undcr 3. 5(3) of thc Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for 'llNSS'). as u'ell as the guidelines forrnulated by thc Hon. ble Courr in Arnesh Kumar y.
Stsle of Bihart, is procccding rnatter. which is contrary to law. I,lence, the continuation proceedings against rhe petitioners is a clear abuse o[process of 4. l'er contra, the leamed Additional public prosccutor submitted thal there are specific allegations leveled against the petitioners. further submitted that basing upon the written instructions 20. ('t4. 2026 lumished bv thc Sub-lnspector police, of Sanathnagar Station, I-lydcrabad City, the lnvestigating Olficer after concluding invcsrigation filed final report on 16. 03. 2026 vlde S. R. No. t53512026 before the XII Additionat Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally, the C. C. number is ari,aited. I{e lurther submitted that the Investigating Officcr has already sencd notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS petitioner No. 1/accused No. l on 16. 03. 2026 and he is trying to serve (2014) ' 8 scc 271 notice under Section 35(3) ol BNSS to the petitioner No. 2/accused No.
2, but he is not coming forward to the Police Station to receive the same. He lurther subrnitted that the Invcstigating Officer will follow the procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) ol the BNSS and the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra) and requested this Cou( to direct the petitioners to cooperate with the investigation. 5. Having considered the rival subrnissions rnade b1,the respective parties and after perusal of the material availablc on rccord. it reveals that the olfences levelled against the pctitioners are punishable with ,t imprisonment of less than seven years. Even according to the learned I \, Additional Public Prosecutor, the Investigating Officer aftcr concluding the investigation filed final rcport on 16. 03. 2026 vide S. R. No. l535/2026 belore XII Additional Mctropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally, against accused No. l and the C. C. number is awaited. Insofar as accused No.
2 is concerned, the Investigating Olficer wants to follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 35(3) olthe BNSS, as well as the guidelines formulated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra). 6. Hence, the Investigating Officer is directed to follow the due procedure as prescribed under the provisions of the BNSS and the guidelines issued b1, rhe IJon,ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra) insofar as petitioner No. 2/accused No. 2. It is needless to mention that petitiorrer No. 2/accuscd No. 2 is cntitlcd to put lorth his grievancc belore the lnvcstigating Olficer and to subrnit the documcnts, which are in his custod),. Insolar as petitioner No. l/accused No. I is concerned, he is granted libcrt_v to avail the remedies as available under law whenever thc cause arises 7 Accordingly. thc criminal petition is disposed of. Pcncling rniscclla. eous applications, ifany. shall stand closed SD/. P. C.
SULEKHA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// (<t SECTION OFFICER To I The Xll Additionat Metropotitan Magistrate at Kukatpally Cyberabad The Station House Officer, Sanathnagar police Station, Cyberabad One CC to SRt. A SAMTR KUMAR REDDY, Advocate tOpUCl 4 Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR High Court for ihe State of Tetangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] 5 Two CD Copies ,W. ^ DK/KA HIGH COURT DATED: 2010412026 -a; . -.. 1. : - /, ;)- ,'1,. -:. ? -\ ir . -) ( '1 ,iJ 1 ti L r APF 2026 ,:, ij ORDER ,, -\ \ \.. '</ '. ( rt , -:; / . \ rt, CRLP. No. 5930 of 2026 --:': . :. 1-l-1-1-r. ,.! \. -- -2 :A-'' DISPOSING OF THE CRLP
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.