Disposed

Chitharanjan Roy v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC25 Aug 2025CRLP/10833/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners accused of cheating and forgery over an agreement of sale sought quashing of FIR while residing in the USA, apprehending arrest on arrival in India. The Court declined to quash but directed that notice under Section 35(3) BNSS be issued per Arnesh Kumar guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to appear before Investigating Officer as and when they arrive in India and receive notice under Section 35(3) BNSS; investigation to follow Arnesh Kumar guidelines.

Chitharanjan Roy Vs State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10833 OF 2025

¶6

Between:

¶7

'l . Chitharanjan Roy, S/o Omkar Pershad Roy, Aged aboul 74 years, OccUnemployee, R/o G-6, Block-F, Aparna Cyber Life, Near Citizen Hospital, Sherilingampally, VTC- Nallagandla, K.V.Rangareddy District, Telangana State-500 0'19. Presently residing at C/o Eesha Roy, 3640 S. Sepulveda BIvd, Apt 133, Los Angeles, CA 90034-6831 United States of America.

¶8

Smt. Vandana Roy, Wo Chitharanjan Roy, Aged about 65 years, Occ-House wife, R/o G-6, Block-F, Aparna Cyber Life, Near Citizen Hospital, Sherilingampally, WC- Nallagandla, K.V.Rangareddy District, Telangana State-500 019. Presently residing at C/o Eesha Roy, 3640 S. Seputveda Blvd, Apt 133, Los Angeles, CA 90034-6831. United States of America.

¶9

...Petitioner/Accused No.'l & 2

¶10

AND

¶11

State of Telangana, rep. by P.P. High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. ...Respondenu State

¶12

Sri Machannagari Kamalakar Reddy, S/o Late Malla Reddy, Aged 52 years, Occ- Business, R/o Villa No. 127, SA Palm l/leadows. Laxmi Nagar. Near Kompally Highway Bridge, Kompally, Medchel District-SOO 0'14.

¶13

...RespondenUDefacto Complainant.

¶14

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS Act, 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.754 of 2025 of Petbasheerabad Police Station, Cyberabad Distlct on the file of the lX Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Cyberabad at I\Iedchal.

¶15

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2025

¶16

Petition under section 528 of BNSS Act, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petitron the High court may be pleased to Stay all further proceedings in Crime No.754 of 2025 of PS Petbasheerabad, cyberabad District on the file of the I ( Addt Judrcial First class ltr'lagistrate, cyberabad at Medchal pending disposal of the above criminat Petition

¶17

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing U-e Memorandum of Grounds of criminar Petition and upon hearing U-e arguments of Mr G sANTosH REDDY, Advocates for the petitioners z nd lvlr JTTHENDER RAo vEERAtvALLA, the Additional publrc prosecutor on lre,half of respondent No 1 and None appeared for the Respondent No.2.

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

¶20

CRIMINAL PETITION No.10833 of 2025 ORDER:

¶21

This criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.754 of 2025 on the file of Petbasheerabad Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the offences under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 (for short'BNS') against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2

¶22

Heard lVlr.G. Santosh Reddy, Iearned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that an agreement of sale was entered into between the petitioners on one side and the de facto complainant on the other, over an extent of Acs.'1 7.00 gts., of land and that the de facto complainant lodged the present complaint alleging that while the said agreement of sale is still pending for execution, the petitioners have allegedly executed a sale deed in favour of accused No.4. Learned counsel further submitted that the copres of the pattader passbooks pertaining to the petilioners, which were obtained in 2023 and 2025 disclosing that they are in possession of the land and that they have not alienated any part of the land that is under the agreement of sale with the de facto complainant

¶24

(r rr ;, /r\li"/-r/,rj

¶25

and that the land sold to accused No.4^{is not at all concerned withthe} agreement of sale entered with the de^{facto compainant and that the} petitioners went to USA and they are apprehendirg arrest^whenever they arrive lndia, and^prayed to^{quash the proce:edings against the} petitioners.

¶26

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor siubmitted^{that the} offences alleged against the^{petitionersare under {)tlctions 316(2) and} 31S(4) of BNS, which are^punishable with^{les:; than 7 years of} imprisonment and hence, the^{petitioners can as well appear beforethe} police concerned and take notice under Section 35(l]) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023^(for short^'BNSS').

¶27

Perused the record.

¶28

The offences alleged against the^petitiorrers in the^{FIR are} under Sections 316(2) and 31(4) of BNS,^{which rrre punishable with} imprisonment of less than 7 years. The record^{rliscloses that the} petitioners are at present residing in USA and the learned counsel for the petitioners apprehends that whenever they arrive^{in lndia, they may} be apprehended by the police. Hence, considt:ring^{the facts and} circumstances of the case, this Court deems^it appropriate^{to direct the} petitioners to appear before the lnvestigating Office r concerned as and when they arrive in lndia and receive notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS and in turn, the lnvestigating Officer is dir,:tIed to invoke the

¶29

t: t]) I L i'' " r'l,\ i i /,/^)/',. i

¶30

¶31

procedure laid down under Section 35(3) of BNS and follow the guidelines formulated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Biharl scrupulously and complete the investigation stricfly in accordance with law and the petitioners are further directed to co-

¶32

operate with the lnvestigating Officer and to furnish the requisite information and documents as and when required by him.

¶33

The Criminal Petition is disposed of with the above

¶34

directions. l\rliscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶35

Sd/. P'CH.^{NAGABHUSHAMBA} DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

l.ThelXAddl.JudicialFirstClassMagistrate,CyberabadatMedchal, 2 The Station^{House Officer, PetbasheerabadPoliceStation ' Cyberabad} District.

¶40

3 Two CCs^{to the Public Prosecutor'High Court for the State of}

¶41

Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶42

One CC to^{Mr. G SANTOSHREDDY,Advocate[OPUC]}

¶43

Two CD^CoPies

¶44

' 1:r)^{t.ly ti sct :l.i}

¶45

HIGH COURT

¶46

DATED: 2510812025

¶47

,:
t/ .-'
i::
ll :')
2 I I'l[! 2025
*
!) '.,1 4T(

¶48

ORDER

¶49

CRLP.No.10833 of 2025

¶50

This Criminal Petition is Disposed of.

¶51

r
Klu

Chitharanjan Roy v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chitharanjan Roy v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Cheluvadi Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana

Kilaru Sumana and 4 Others Vs Battula anji and another

Bhagavan Reddy Vs The State of Telangana.

Sahadev Bhimrao Gosavi Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd Zafar Ahmed Vs The State of Telangana

Dolu Ramulu Vs The State of Telangana