Chitharanjan Roy, 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 2026-04-13. Chitharanjan Roy, v. State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[ 33031 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5465 OF 2026 Between: Chitharanjan Roy, S/o Omkar Pershad Roy, Aged about 74 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o G-6, Block-F, Aparna Cyber Life, Near Citizen Hospital, Sherilingampally, WC. Nallagandla, K. V. Rangareddy District, Telangana State - 500 019. Petitioner/Accused EIIT' 1. State of Telangana, rep. by P. P. High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. RespondenUState 2. Sri Santosh Singh, S/o Late B. Laxman Singh, Age. 52 years, Occ. Practicing Advocate, Caste. BC-Lodhkshatriyas, R/o. H. No. 1-2-1781811, Domalguda, Himayatnagar Street No. 7, Hyderabad. Cell No. 9849168900. ..
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. 104 of 2025 ol Bomraspet Police Station, Vikarabad District on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vikarabad District at Kodangal. :l 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 Crime No. 104 of 2025 of PS. Bomraspet, Vikarabad District on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vikarabad District at Kodangal pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing. the Memorandum of Grounds t' .
of Criminal Petitior and upon hearing ihe arguments of Sri G, Santosh Reddy, Advocate for the l)etitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER INTHEHIGHCOURTFoRTIIESTATEoFTELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THEHONOURABLESRIJUSTICEJ. SREENIVASRAo Datez \3. 04. 2026 Between: RoY Chitharanjan ... Petitioner/Accused AND its Public Prosecutor' represented by of Terangana, The state and another' til=i"tl of relangan"' Hvd"'"bad ffi;;);H;i;; Respondents . O8]DER: 528 of filed under Section This Criminal Fetition has been short the Sanhita' 2023' (for Nagarik Suraksha quash the t: seeking to by the petitioner/accused' :i Police of 2025 of Bomraspet in Crime No. 1O4 : for the at Kodangal' registered Vikarabad District with 49 329(31' 324141read punishable under Sections (for short the BNS')' Nyaya Sanhitha ,2O2g counsel for the :Heard Mr. Reddy, learned G.
Santosh learned Rao Veeramalla' and Mr. Jithender No'1' for respondent Public Prosecutor, appea-ring . h a .. 4-- 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that tJle petitiorrer has not committed any offences and they have been falsely implicated in the present crime. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are purely civil in nature in respect. of agricul tural land and respondent No. 2 frled the present complidnt by giving criminal colour. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the ingredients of the offenct:s under Sections 329(3), 324(41 read. with 49 of the BNS are not attracted against the petitioner. He further submitted that petitioner/accused was not present on the date of alleged offence as he is residing in U. S. A and therefore, respondent No. 2 Iiled the complaint by making false allegations and that the petitioner's name was not mentioned in the complaint. Subsequently, petitioner,s name was implicated as accused No. 2. 4.
He further submitted that the offences leveled against the petiti. ner are punishabre with imprisonment of less than seven years. However, the Investigating Officer, without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Araesh ::3:: ::. ii. , :ii. l-:: : :: Kumar 'i' vs. state of Biharrr the principles ".. / laid down by tl. e i':. ,:{ Y Honble Apex court in Md. Asfak Alam v. The state of Jharkhand & another (crl. A. No . 22or of 2023) dated 31. 07. 2023, and also the circular issued by this court in Roc. No. 1399/so /2029 dated og. og. 2o2g, is proceedirs with the investigation, which is contrar5r to law. Hence, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse of process of law. 5: Per corltra, the learned Additional public prosecutor, basing upon the written instructions dated Lo. o4.
2o26 furnished by the sub-Inspector police, of Bomraspet police station, vikarabad District, submitted that the Investigating oflicer issued notice under section 3s(3) of the BNSS to the petitioner on o8. 02. 2026. However, the Investigating officer will follow due procedure in respect of petitioner/accused and. also the procedure prescribed under Section 3s(3) of the BNSS and the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex court in Arnesh Kumar (supral and requested this court to direct the petitioner to cooperate with the investigation. r(20t4) 8 SCC 273 ri. di! ". . :;:-3$: t: 1i ; : . - ',, " . ;' i.. ;:r i #;i:'- 6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that initially. petitioner was not arrayed as accused ltlo. 2. Subsequently, the petitioner was arrayed as accused It{o.
2 for the offences under Sections under 329(8), 324(41 rcztd, with 49 of the BNS and the offences leveled against petitioner/accused an'e punishable with imprisonment of less than sevr:n years. Even according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the Investigating Officer has already issued notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS to petitioner/accused on 08. 02. 20:26. In view of the same, petitioner/accused is entitled to submit his reply by putting forth their grievances by raising all the pleas which are available to him by enclosing all relevant documerits which are in their possession. The Investigating Oflicer i. s further directed to scrupulously follow the due procedure in respect of petitioner/accused and also the provisions of the BNSS and tJ:e guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumlrlr supra, and conclude the investigation. 7. S,blEtt-to the above directions, the Criminal petition is disposed of.
:5 Miscellaneous apprications, pending if any, shail stand closed gP/:. {. BHAVAN| SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTCAN //TRUE C}pytt ,/ (? To, SECTION OFFTCER cum Judiciar Masistrate or First crass, I iiE,,:Jtr'Bfl,,iJ:llf#,jidse 2. The Station House Offic;;:'Elrrr. p"t potice Station, Vikarabad 3' District. to the Pubric pros-ecutoi, High c;; of reransana at Hyderabad ff;ritt 4. One CC to Sri G. Santosh Reddy, Advocate 5. Two CD Copies tOpUCl GNK/PSL v c HIGH COURT DATED i 13,10412026 (} \} o AP fl 2fJ? [ 2 1 - * * I a o li ER CRLP. No. 5465 of 202G DISPOSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION
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.