Ravula Venkanna v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC7 Nov 2025CRLP/14406/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court, single judge (Justice Tirumala Devi Eada), Crl.P.No.14406 of 2025, order dated 07.11.2025. Quash petition under S.528 BNSS re Crime No.287/2025, Suryapet Town PS (accused no.7). Relief: procedural directive only — appearance before IO on/before 27.11.2025; compliance with S.35(3) BNSS & Arnesh Kumar guidelines; cooperation required from accused; investigation to be completed per law. Case cited: Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 — relied upon.

What did the court decide?

Quash petition not decided on merits; instead directions issued for IO to follow Section 35(3) BNSS and Arnesh Kumar guidelines; petitioner to appear before IO on or before 27.11.2025 between 11:00 a.m.-05:00 p.m.; miscellaneous petitions closed. ¶34-36

Ravula Venkanna Vs The State of Telangana — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

134441

¶2

THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 14406 OF 202s

¶7

Between:

¶8

Ravula Venkanna, S/o.Ravula Ramachandru, Aged 34 years, Occ. Private Employee, R/o.H.No. l-33,Utkur Village of Shaligoraram Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶9

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.7

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, rep its Public prosecutor, High court for the state of Telangana, Through S.H.O. P.S. Suryapet Town, Suryapet District.

¶12

Dr.Konkanchi Hariprasad, S/o.Srinivas, Aged 29 years, Occ. Medical officer, UPHC(Urban Primary Health Centre, R/o. Gopalapuram of Suryapet Town

¶13

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶14

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, Jhe High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No.7 in Cr.No.287 of 2025 of Suryapet town Police station, Suryapet District in the interest of^justice.

¶15

l.A. NO: 2OF 2025

¶16

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitbn,the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings including the arrest of the Petitioner/Accused No.7 in Crime No.287 of 2025 of Suryapet town Police station, Suryapet District, pending disposal of the above quash petition, in the interest of^justice.

¶17

This Petition coming on for^{hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum} of Grounds of Criminal^petition and upon^{hearing the arguments} of Sri VEERA BABU GANDU ,Advocate for the Petitioner^{and Mr V.Jithender} Rao Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent^{No1. and none} appear foi' the Respondent No2.

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMIN PETITION N 0.14406 ot 2025

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') seeking the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.7 in Crime No.287 ol 2025, on the file of Suryapet Town Police Station, Suryapet District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 125 read with 3(5) of BNS, 2023; Section 5(2)(3) of The Medical termination of Pregnancy Act, 197'l and Section 23 of Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (PNDT) Act, 1994.

¶22

Heard Sri Veera Babu Gandu, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.7 as well as Sri Jitender Rao Veeramalla, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner has restricted his submission stating that a direction be issued to the Police to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 35 (3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (tor short 'BNSS').

¶24

¶25

¶26

ETD, J Crlp-t4406 2025

¶27

On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not disputed the same

¶28

Considering the submissions of both the learned counsel and the material available on record, it is seen that the allegations alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 31e(4), 125 read with 3(5) of BNS, 2023; Section 5(2)(3) of The Medical termination of Pregnancy Act,^'1971 and Section 23 of Pre-Conception and PreNatal Diagnostic Techniques (PNDT) Act, 1994 and the punishment prescribed for the offences alleged against the petitioner is less than seven (07) years. Hence, without going into the merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the petitioner/accused No.7 to appear before the lnvestigating Officer on or before 27.11.2025 between 11:00 a.m. and 05:00 p.m. and in turn, thrrrlnvestigating Officer is directed to follow the procedure laid down under Section 35 (3) of the BNSS (previously Section 4'l-A of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) and also the guidelines formulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Arnesh Kumar y. State of Biharl scrupulously. However, the petitioner/accused No.7 shall submit his defense and co-operate with the lnvestigating Officer as and when

¶29

1 (2014) 8 scc 273

¶30

¶31

E'fD, I Crlp,l44Q6 2Q25

¶32

required by furnishing information and producing all relevant documents/material required for the purpose of investigation and the lnvestigating Officer shall consider the same and complete the

¶33

investigation strictly in accordance with law.

¶34