Sri L. Vittal 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 2026-04-20. Sri L. Vittal Reddy v. State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
3303 ] [ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5910 OF 2026 Between: Sri L. Vittal Reddy, S/o. Sri Narasimha Reddy, aged about 65 years, Occ: Agriculture Rl/o. H. No. 1-7, Gowrelli Village old Hayathnagar mandal, present Abdullapurmet mandal Ranga Reddy district. ... Petitioner/Accused AND 1. State of Telangana, represented by Public Prosecutor High Cou(, Hyderabad. ... RespondenUState 2. Sri Kura Anand, S/o. Sri Kuna Bikshapathi, aged about 40 years, Occ: Business Rl/o. H. No. 3-90/4, Gowrelli Village Abdullapurmet mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ... RespondenUDefacto-Complainant 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 in Crime No.
62Bl2025 on the file of Nagole Police Station, Ranga Reddy district, against the petitioner herein as sole accused for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 329(3) and 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, as illegal, violative of law and procedure, against the seftled principles of law supported by judicial precedents, in the interest of justice. 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 stay all further proceedings including arrest of the petitioner/accused in Crime No. 62812025 on the file of Nagole Police Station, Ranga Reddy district, pending disposal of this Criminal Petition, in the interest of justice. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. Sardar Jasbeer Singh, Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr.
Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the 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 TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD . TItE HONOURABLE SRI . IUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL I'}ETITION No. 59l0 of 2026 Date:20. 01. 2026 Betweer-r Sri L. Vittal Reddr .. Petitioner AND State ol"l'elangana and anritlrcr . Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in FII{ No. 6ltl ol'1025 ol- Nagole Police Station, Ranga Reddl District. rvherein thc pctitioncr was arrayed as accused, for the offences punishable under Sections 329(3) and 351(2) of the Bharaliya N1 ay'a Sanhita. 2023 ( lbr shortBNS') 2. l{eard Mr. Sartlar Jzrsbecr Singh. lcarned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jithcnder Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. appearing lirr the respondent No. 1 State. - 3.
With the consenl ol both the leamed counsel, the criminal petition is disposed of at thc admission stage 4. l,earned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed the alleged offence and has been falsely impticated in the present crirne. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are purely civil in nature and the ingredients of Sections 329(3) and 351(2) of the BNS are not attracted against the petitioner' rl il has filed a suit in O'S'No'62 He further submitted that the petitioner li I ol 2026 on the flle of the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, I j Ranga Reddy District at L. B. Nagar, against respondent No'2 and two others. seeking perpetual injunction. The learned trial Court' by order dated 06. 03. 2026, granted an ad-intcrim injunction in I. A. No.
179 of 1026, restraining the respondents/defendants therein from interlering with the suit schedule property' He also submitted that the petitioner approached this Court by filing W'P No'10651 of 2026, questioning the inaction of the respondent authorities on the complaint todged by hirn against respondent No'2' This Court' by order dated 08. 04. 2026. directed the learned Assistant Govemment observing that Pleader fbr Home to obtain inslructions. particularly when civil disputes are pending between the petitioner and respondent No. 2, the registration of Crime No'622 of 2025 by the StationHouseofficerrequiresclarification. Thesaidwritpetitionis 'pending. Hence, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse ofprocess o[law' \\ 4. 1. He furlher submitted that the offences levelled against the pctitioner are punishable rvith irnprisonment lor a term of less than seven years. I-he Investlgatinq Officer.
following the "r'ithout mandatory procedure prescribcd under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 102. 1 (lbr short. "BNSS"), as well as the guidelines fbrmulated b1' thc f{on'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. St e of Bihart, is proceeding rvith the matter, which is contrary to larv 5. Pcr tontra, thc learned Additional Ptrblic Prosccutor basing upon the instructions turnished by the conccmed officer submits that the Investigating Ofllccl had already issued notice under Section 35t3) olthe IINSS to the pctitioner on 19. 09. 2025 and the petitioncr rvithout subrnitting reply/explanation to the said notice straightaway approached this Court and flled the present criminal petition and thc same is not maintainable under law. 6. By u,a1, ol reply. Icarned courrsel tbr the petitioner, petitioner has not received nolice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS.
He furtlrer submitted that the petitionel will appear before the Investigating Officer, cooperate with the investigation, and submit his reply/explanation along rvith relevant documents ' 1zo r l1 qascc: :;l -_--:--------! + 7 . Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon penrsal of the material available on record, it reveals that the of-fences levelled against the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. Even according to the leamed Additional Public Prosecutor, the Investigating Officei'had already issued notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS to the petitioner on 19. 09. 2025. The same was disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. In view of the same, the petitioner/accused is directed to appear belore the Investigating Officer, on or before 30. 04.
2026, and on such appeatance, the Investigating Officer is entitled to issue notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, if not already issued, and follow thc guidetines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar supra. The petitioner is entitled to submit reply/explanation along with the documents, which are available with him to the Investigating Othcer. The Investigating Officer is entitled to strictly follow the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, as well as the guidelines formulated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra). 9 accordingly, the Crirninal Petition is disposed of' J Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. L. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (= //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 ThelAdditionalJuniorCivilJudgecumlAdditionalJudicialMagistrateofFirst Class, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar' bffice,, Nagole Police Station-' Rachakonda District' 2 inu Strt. riHors" Advocate [OPUC] O. " CC t" Mr.
Sardar JasbeeiSingh' 3 tiigh court foi the State of Telangana' at pro. "",loi, 4 Two CCs to Public Hyderabad [OUT] q sii fri, nnrno, s/o sri Kuna Bikshapathi' R/o H No 3-90/A' Gowrelli Village District'(BY SPAD) iuorrrrprlr"t mandal, Ranga Reddy cD G 1wo copleA KAM/BA Y\-- HIGH COURT DATED: 2010412026 ;---. -:. -all Ti t ;.. ORDER I ) t: , I 2 4 APB ll) D z CRLP. No. 5910 of 2026 1 -J- DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION gO 6"^ d, h" ad('r
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.