Raghutu Janakiram 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 2026-04-28. Raghutu Janakiram 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 TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6638 0F 2026 Between: Raghutu Janakiram, SiO Malleshwer Rao Aged about 36 Years Occ. Business R/O Flat No. G4, SR Plaza, Plot No. 7,8,14 & 15, Sy. No. 86/P, Nizampet, Bachupally Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED No. 1 AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep. P. P High Court at Hyderabad Through P. S KPHB Colony, Cyberabad Commissionerate, Medchal-Malkalgiri District, Telangana. ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT 2. Ganta Chandra Shekar, S/o Late G. N. Surender Kumar Aged about. 36 Years, Occupation. Pvt. Employee, R/ H. No. 1-2-185, Kamsari Bazar, New Bowenpally Secunderabad, Telangana ...
RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumslances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the FIR in Cri. No. 200 of 2026, against Petitioner/Accused No. 1, for the offences U/S 318(4) & 316(2) of BNS. l. A. NO: 2OF 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 lnterim stay on all further proceedings in Cri. No. 200 of 2O26, registered by P. S KPHB Colony, forthe offences U/S 318(4) and 316(2) of BNS, pending disposal of main criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri L, Harish, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 .
The Court made the following: ORDER w IN THE HIGH (]OURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRT JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6638 of 2026 Date:28. 04. 2026 Bet\,r'een: Raghu tu Janakiram .. Petitioner/ Accused No. 1 AND The State ofTelangana and another Responden ts Order: This Crimina. Petition has been iiled seeking to quash the proceedings in Crin:e No. 200 ot 2026 of KPHB Colony police Station, Cybcrabad Commissionerate, registered lor the offences punishable undr:r Sections 318(4) and 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (tor short 'BNSJ. 2. Heard Mr. L Harish, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Jithendar Rao \. /ceramalla, learned Additional public prosecutor, appearing on behalf ol respondent No. 1-State. With their consent, the criminal petition is disposed of at the admission stage. 3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in the present crime. The nature of allegations leveiled in the complaint are purely civil in nitture, especially the petitioner provided employment l ) I I I I and accused No. 2 had given appointment orders to thre de-facto I complainant. The petitioner was implicated as accused No. 1 only on the ground that he forwarded the name of t! l^e de-facto complainant to accused No. 2. The said allegations do not attract the ingredients of the offence under Sections 3 18(4) and 3 16(2) of the BNS against the petitioner. He lurther submitted that the offences levelled against the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years.
However, the [nvestigating Officer, without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSSJ and the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Biharl, and the principles laid down by the Honble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation in (M. A. No. 2O34 of 2022 in M. A. No. 1849 of 2O2l in SPL (Crl) No. 5191 of 2O21f dated L5. OL. 2O26 t is proceeding with the investigation and the same is contrary to law. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner and other accused that they have extorted huge amount from the de-facto complainant and other victims under the guise of providing employment with a dishonest intention and collected huge amount and provided false employment.
The said allegations wiil attract the ingredients of tl2o14l I SCC 273 ' ==1 Sections 318(4) and ,1 16(2) of the BNS. He further submitted that the offences Ievelled against the peti[ioner shall be punished with imprisonment below seven years and the Investigating Officer had already serued notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS to accused No. 2 on 27 . O2. 2026 and the petitioner is not eooperating with the investigation. However, the Investigating Officer will follow the very same procedure in respect of accused No. 1 . 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner by way of reply submitted that the petitioner will cooperate r. vi th the investigation and will appear before rhe Investigatirrg Officer and cooperate with the investigation. 6.
Having considere d the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after pemsal of thc material available on record, it revea-ls that even according to the allegations levelled in the complaint, the offences levellcd :rgainst the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. Even according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the Investigating Officer had already served notice to accused No. 2 on 27. O2. 2026 under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and the Investigating Ofhcer wants to follow the very same procedure in respect of the petitioner. In view of the same, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on or before 1O. 05,2026 and on such appearance, the Investigating Officer is directed to follow the due procedure as prescribed under the provisions of Seclion 35(3) of tl-,e BNSS and the guidelines issued by the Hon,ble C Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supral.
It is needless to mention that the petitioner is entitled to put forth his grievance before the Investigating Officer and he is also entitled to submit the documents, which are in his custody. 7. With the above directions, the Criminal Petition is disposed of Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed SD/- B. REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRA //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Additionar Junior civir Judge-cum-XV Additionar Judiciar Magistrate of First Ctass at Kukatpaily, tvtedchlt-Matkaigiii ot. ii. i 2. The Station House Officer, KpHB Colony police Station, Cyberabad 3. Two CCs to public prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] 4. One CC to Sri L. Harish Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies VFI/KA qx CC:TopFl HIGH COURT PDATED: 2810412026 IHE Si,{ ( \. ) . J a) [ 5 t'lAI ORDER ! . 9_ . xr'... '::, .. 1. k CRLP. No. 6638 of 2026 -i\ . ltrs {4:. r'",' ',I C, i' DISPOSING OF THE CRIMIT\IAL PETITION de @ 0\
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.