Sappidi Venkat Reddy v. 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 2026-04-17. Sappidi Venkat Reddy v. State of Telangana,. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5429 OF 2026 Between Sapprdi Venkat Reddy, S/o S. Yadi Reddy, Aged about 48 years, occ. Business Rlo 1-9-3241112, V N Reddy Cotony, Kushaiguda ECIL post, Kapra, RR District - 500062 ... Petitioner/Accused-2 AND 1. State of Telangana,, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, At Hyderabad 2. M-Devender Reddy, S/o Narsimha Reddy Aged about 74 years, occ. Retired Employee, R/o H. No. 4-1-39, Govt School Back Side, Kowkoor, Alwal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgrri - 50001 0 ... RespondenUDefacto Com plainant 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. 192/2025 registered before PS Jawaharnagar against petitioner/ Accused No. 2. l. A.
NO: 1OF 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 stay all further proceedings in FIR No-192/2025 registered before PS Jawaharnagar as against Petitioner/ Accused No. 2 This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr J- PRABHAKAR, Senior Advocate, representing Smt- KANUMURI KALYANI, Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA, the Additionat Pubtic Prosecutor on behalf of Respondent No. 1 and None appeared for the Respondent No. 2 The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF' I ELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SRI'I. - \ IVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5429 of 2 (26 Date 17. 04. 2026 Between: Sappidi Venkat Redd1, .
Petitioner AND State of Telangana and another Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition has been fited scck r g to quash the proceedings in F I. R. No. l9l ol 2025 of Jauatrrnagar police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, wherein thr petitioner was arrayed as accused No. 2 for the oflfences punishablr under. Sections 329(3),324(3) and 352 r/w 3(5) of rhe Bhararila \ya1,a Sanhita, 2023 (for shorr ' BNS' ). 2. Heard Mr. J. Prabhakar, learned Senior Corrn el representing Smt. Kanumuli Kalyani, learned counsel for thr: petitioner and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeranralla, learned Acli tional public Prosecutor for respondent No. l. 3. With the consenr ol both the parties, the cr. ir rinal petition is disposed ofat [hc staqe of adnrission. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed the alleged of'fence and has been lalsely impticated in the present case.
The allegations levelled against the petitioner are purely civil in nature pertaining to monetary transaction. He further subrnitted that respondent No. 2 ought to have approached the cornpetent Civil Court to establish his rights over the property, on the other hand, filed the present complaint by giving criminal colour. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the ingledients for the oflence under Sections 329(3),124(3) and 352 rlw 3(5) ofthe BNS are not attracted against the petitioner. He further submitted that the oflences alleged against the petitioner are punishable with imprisonrnent ol' less than seven )'ears. 1-he Investigating Officer, without lollowing the rnandatory procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) ofthe Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') and without following the guidelines lormulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihart, is proceeding lurther in the matter and the same is contrary to law.
He further subrnitted that the Investigating Officer filed final report against accused No. [. In the said final repoft, the lnvestigating '1zota1 8 scc 2z-t ,, Officer mentioned that petitioner is abscondin I though the 'l petitioner is i,ery much available. he allegations cvellcd in the Iinal report by the Investigating Olficer are not true i nd correct and the petitioner is a law binding citizen. The petit oner has filed swom affidavit denying the allegations made by' t I : Inr estigating Officer in the final report filed against accused No 5. Per contra, leamed Additional Public Plos:cutor subrnits that the oflences levelled against the petitioner is unishable with J imprisonment of less than seven years. The Invc; igating Officer had already llled final repon aqainst accuscd \r. 1.
IIe further submitted that the lnvestigating Olficer will lollor the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3)of the BNSS arr rhe guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumqr (supr r) in respect of' the petitioner and requested this Courr to direct t re petitioner ro 1 I cooperate with the Investigating Of ficer 6. I{aving considered the lival submission; made by the respective pafties and after perusal of the matc. rl available on record, it reveals that the offences levelled against t re petitioner are punishable with imprisonment of less than sc', 'n vears. Even )rosccutor, according to the learned Additional Public rhe -i lnvestigating Olficer will foilow the procedure contemplated under I Section 35(3) of the BNSS and also the guidelines lormulated by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra). 7.
In view of the same, the Investigating Olficer is directed to lollow the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the BNSS and the guidelines issued by the Hon,ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra) against the petitioncr. lt is needless to mention that the petitioner is entitled to put lorth his grievance, by raising all the pleas which are available to him. 8. Accordingly, the Crinrinal petition is disposed o t'. Miscellaneous applications, pending il any, shall stand closed. SD/-K. BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ 6 SECTION OFFICER To, l The X Additionar Junior civir Judge --"um- x Addrtionar Metroporitan Magistrate, Medchat Matkajgiri Distrtctlt Medchal. 2. The Station House Officer, Jawaharnagar police Station, Rachakonda. 3. One CC to Smt. KANUMURT KALYAN| Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CCs to puBltc PRoSECUTOR High court for the state of Tetangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies o RC :. =iE*tr , HIGH COURT DATED: 1710412026 ORDER hlE 5I4 o'tl ':. CRLP. No.
S429 of 2026 'l- , I il 2 Z Aiil 5 :. . c'; . r . ') \. 1 . i\, t I . J , ^. . -,r :|,-... - ', .. ' s)- The Criminal Petition is Disposed of ex
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.