Donthineni Ashok Rao, 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 2026-04-09. Donthineni Ashok Rao, v. The 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 THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESE\T THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITIO N NO: 4733 OF 2026 Between: Agriculture' Donthineni Ashok Rao, S/o Yella Rao, Aged about 55 years, Occ. R/o Sardapur Village, Sircilla Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District, Telangana. ... Petitioner/Accused AND 1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor' High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad- .. Respondent No. 1 2. Gotte Devendra, Wo Anjaiah, Aged about 55 years, R/o. Ambedkarnagar, Sircilla, Rajanna Sircilla District, Telangana. ... De facto ComplainanU Respondent No. 2 Petition under section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Pe. ition, the High court may be pleased to call for the records connected with FIR No. 17212026 dated 28-03-2026 registered by P. S.
Sircilla Town, Rajanna Sircilla District, for offences under Sections 296(b), 115(2) BNS and Sections 3(1X0,3(1)(s) and 3(2)(Va) ofthe Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, and quash the proceedings against the Petitioner. l. A. NO: 2OF 2026 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of crrminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to stay alt further proceedings in FIR No. 172t2O26 dated 28-03-2026 registered by P S Srrcilla Town, Raianna Sircilla District, including the arrest of the Petitroner/Accused, pending disposal of the present Quash Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memor rndum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri K. lit rhan chandrahas, Advocate for the Petitioner and sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla. earned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.
1 and non: appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4733 of 2026 Date: 09. 04. 2026 Between: Donthineni Ashok Rao ... Petitioner/ Accused AND The State of Telangana, Rep. By Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangnana at Hyderabad and another Respondents Order: This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (for short 'the BNSSJ by the petitioner/ accused seeking to quash the proceedings in F. LR. No.
172 of 2026 of Sircilla Town Police Station, Rajanna as sole accused Sircilla District wherein the petitioner was arrayed for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), I I 5(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for short 'the BNS') and Sections 3(1) (r) (s) and 3(2) (Va) of the Scheduled Castes ald the Scheduled ST Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short' 'SC POA / ActJ. 2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that pursuant to the order dated 31. O3. 2 026, the concerned SHO has served I l notice to respondent No. 2 on 30. 03. 2026, and plact:, I a copy of the said intimation. Inspite of the said intimation, respr r dent No. 2 has not chosen to enter appearance. 3. Heard Mr. K. Mohan Chandrahas, learned o,,unsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, -lea red Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No. I . 4. With their consent, the criminal petition is di ; rosed of at the stage of admission. 5.
lrarned counsel for the petitioner vehementll ;ubmitted that the petitioner has not committed any offences ar r he has been falsely implicated in th.. present crime. The alre: rtions leve ed against the petitioner are purely civil in nature i I respect of 20 guntas of land. Respondent No. 2 filed the present < r iminal petition only to resolve the civil disputes by giving crirnr I rl colour. The petitioner did not abuse the respondent No. 2 in t[ e name of his caste. Even according to the allegations made in th,) complaint, the ingredients o[ the offences under Sections 2g6(b , 115(2) of the BNS and Sections 3(t) (s) tr) and 3(2) (Va) of the : J/ST pOA Act I are not attracted against the petitioner. Hence, con t nuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse o the process of law. He further submitted that the offences leve [ . d against the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment less r[ L, 11 seven years.
However, the Investigating Officer, without followinll rhc mandatory i J procedurc prescribed under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, the gr"ridelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Biharl, the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Md. Asfak Alam v. The State of Jharkhaad & another (Crl. A. No. 22O7 of 20231 dated 31. 07 . 2O23, and also the circular issued by this Court in ROC. No. 1399lSO/2023 dated 09'O8'2023, is proceeding with the investigation, which is contrary to law' 6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner to attract the ingredients of the above said offences' However, the offences levelled against the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment less than seven years.
The Investigating Ofhcer has already issued a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS to petitioner/accused and the petitioner is entitled to submit his grievance/ reply before the Investigating Officer along with relevant documents. 7 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted tJlat the to submit his reply/explanation along petitioner may be permitted with relevant documents to the Investigating Ofhcer' 8. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on l4) 8 SCC 273 '{20 record, it reveals that the offences lev: cd petitioner/ accused are punishable with imprisonme I o[ less seven years. Even according to the learned Adrl tional Prosecutor, the lnvestigating Officer has alreadv ssued under Section 35(3) of the BNSS to petitioner/ accu s rd. In the same, petitioner is entitted to submit his reply br.
-aising pleas which are available to them and they are z I o entitled submit the documents, which are in his custody. Tt r Investigating Officer is further directed to scrupulously follow th: procedure contemplated under the provisions of the BNSS anc _he guidelines Iaid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kun Lar supra and conclude the investigation. It is needless -to me -ion petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation. 9. Subject to the above directions, petition the Crimrr al disposed of. Miscellaneous applications, pending if an y shal closed SD'- T. C. SULEKHA A\S IS TANT REGIS //TRUE COPY" ) To, At 1. The Prrncipal Judicial First Class Magistrate {rcil Town Poli\e a:i rn, Rajanna 2. Tfre Station House Officer, Sircilla District 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court o)'$bl,r rgana at tourl +. bne CC to Sri K Mohan Chandrahas, Advocate [OPUCI 5. Two CD CoPies GNK/PSL i r rE! F! *T. ErEW.! Gr. --ffi a =ctodt HIGH COURT DATED: 0910412026 -( 9. " ^\i ( o o ?
tn$ lPs I 1t s; ORDER * * Da_- CRLP. No. 4733 ot 2026 \. ,. 'i-rC DISPOSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION @{4" $ \t\\
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Archive: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.