Disposed

Vaddireddi Rayapa Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC1 Dec 2025CRLP/15783/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court held that Section 528 BNSS is inadmissible for an offence punishable under less than seven years imprisonment. Directed Investigating Officer to follow Section 41-A CrPC/Section 35(3) BNSS guidelines per Arnesh Kumar. Disposed of petition without quashing FIR.

What did the court decide?

Directions to I/O to follow Section 41-A CrPC/Section 35(3) BNSS process; Petition disposed.

Vaddireddi Rayapa Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 15783 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Vaddireddi Rayapa Reddy, S/o Late V. Keerti Reddy, Aged about 45 years, Occ- Business, IVlanaging Director of [r//s. RAYA lnfra and Developers Pvt. Ltd., R/o Flat No. 1304, B-Block, I\rly Home Bhooja. Raidurga Panmaktha, Ranga Reddy District - 500032,

¶9

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. through its Public Prosecutor, High Court, At Hyderabad. 500066

¶12

...RESPONDENf No. 1/RESPONDENT

¶13

Koneru Rahul Chowdary, S/o Koneru Venkat Chowdary, Aged about 42 years, Occ- Business, R/o Plot No. 23, Road No. 5'1, Nandi Hills, Jubilee Hills, Shaikpet, Hyderabad 500033.

¶14

...RESPONDENT No. 2/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶15

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 FIR No. 597 ol 2025 dated 2211.2025 on the file of PS Pahadishareef, Rachakonda Commissionerate.

¶16

l.A. NO: 2OF 2025

¶17

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 grant stay of all further proceedings including arrest of the Petitioner / accused in FIR No. 597 of 2025 dated 22.11.2025 on the file of PS

¶18

Pahadishareef, Rachakonda Commissionerate, pending Jisposal of the main quash proceed ings.

¶19

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing lhe \4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argumenls of Sri B. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioner, Sri Jitendar Rao Veerarnalla. Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No and of Sri [t/l.P. Chandramouli, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.^.

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

l I

¶22

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

¶24

CRIMINAL PETITION No.15783 of 2025

¶25

Date:01.12.2025

¶26

Between

¶27

Vaddireddi Rayapa Reddy

¶28

pctltloner

¶29

AND

¶30

'Ihe State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Courl, at Hyderabad and another.

¶31

..respondents

¶32

Order

¶33

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings irr FIR No.597 of 2025, on the file of the Pahadishareef police Station. Rachakonda Commissionerate, wherein the petitioner was arayed as accused, for the offence punishable under Seclion 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for short 'BNS,).

¶34

Heard Mr.B.Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel lor the petitioner. Mr.Jitendar Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional public prosecutor appearing pr respondent No.1/State and Mr.M.p.Chandramouli, leamed Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶35

re{

¶36

¶37

1'hough the learncd counsel for the^{petitioncr atrd thc learned} Scnior CounseJ for respondent No.2 have^{raisedsevet'trlcontentionsin} the present Criminal Petition, this Courl is not inclined^{trr dea.lrvith the} sanre at this sta-sc. on the^ground that the^{offenceslev:lleda.gainstthc} petitioner are punishable with imprisonment of less than sc'r'cn^years. and therefore, thc Investigating Officer ought to ha'rer^followedthe procedure contenrplated under Section 4 I -A of the ,l r.P.(l.i Section 35(3) ol the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. ilC23^{(for shor1.} 'BNSS'), as rlell as the guidelines formulated by th,: Hon'ble^Apex Cowt in Arnesh Kumor Vs. State of Bihart^.

¶38

In vieu, ol the sarne, the Investigating Officc.r is dlrected to follow the prucedure AS contemplated under Sectic n 4 I -A of the Cr.P.C./Section 35(3) of the BNSS, and the guideline; formulated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar's case^(suprt)

¶39

It is made clear that the petitioner/accused shall <;ooperate rvith the Investigating Officer for the investigation and make himsell available to irirn as and when required and also provide the i nformati on/documents AS sought by him to r;onclude the rnvestigatlon.

¶40

1 lzor+; a scc zz:

¶41

¶42

',7

¶43

If the petitioner/accused fails to cooperate with the

¶44

Investigating Officer for investigation, the Investigating Officer is at

¶45

liberty to take action against him in accordance with law.

¶46

7 . Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of.

¶47

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand

closed

//TRUE COPY//

SD/- AHMED ABDULLA KHAN A ISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

¶52

To,

¶53

The.Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Metropolitan tu'lagistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar

¶54

The Station House Officer, Pahadishareef Police Station, Rachakonda District

¶55

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.IOUT]

¶56

One CC to Sri B. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate [OPUC]

¶57

One CC to Sri M.P. Chandramouli, Advocate [OPUC]

¶58

¶59

VIi

¶60

6 Two CD Copies

¶61

i I I i i I I i i i ! j I I I ! I I I I I I i I i I I I i I I I i

HIGH COURT

DATED: 4111212025

ORDER

CRLP.No.15783 of 2025

¶66

i: :r.<br>or
'ra,
il
N;I
sir>
oa:
l-t-
\ ."t !'
(
) golu 1

¶67

DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION

¶68

Vaddireddi Rayapa Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaddireddi Rayapa Reddy v. The 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

Mohammed Nazeeruddin Vs The State of Telangana

Baddam Prashanth Reddy Vs the State of A.P.

Tiruvuri Uma Maheswara Rao Vs Maram Sitha Mahalaxmi

Shaik Habeeb, Vs The State of Telangana

Dr. M.Vijaya Gopal, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Qudsiya mumtaz , Vs the State of Telangana