Gundepangu Kartheek Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Gundepangu Kartheek Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing not granted; the criminal petition was disposed of with directions — petitioner/Accused No.3 to appear before the Investigating Officer on or before 12.12.2025, notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. / Section 35(3) BNSS to be issued on his appearance and investigation conducted per the Arnesh Kumar guidelines; if he fails to appear within the stipulated time, the Investigating Officer may proceed in accordance with law. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings in Crime No.162/2025 (P.S. Chilkur, Suryapet) against the petitioner, arrayed as Accused No.3, should be quashed on the contention that the allegations in the complaint are levelled mainly against Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 and the petitioner stands implicated only on the strength of the other accuseds' confession statements, so that continuation would be an abuse of the process of law. +1 more

Court's answer

Having considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record, the Court found that there are no specific allegations against the petitioner to attract the ingredients of Section 338 of the BNS, and that the other offences levelled against the petitioner are punishable with an imprisonment of less than seven years.

Ratio / Principle

The Investigating Officer ought to have issued notice under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. / Section 35(3) of the BNSS, by following the guidelines formulated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.

Key takeaways

Petitioner/Accused No.3 is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on or before 12.12.2025; upon such appearance, the Investigating Officer shall issue notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. / Section 35(3) BNSS and conduct the investigation in accordance with the guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar's case; if the petitioner fails to appear within the stipulated time, the Investigating Officer shall be entitled to proceed further in accordance with law.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (Single Bench — Justice J. Sreenivas Rao, 04.12.2025), Criminal Petition No. 15963 of 2025 — Gundepangu Kartheek v. The State of Telangana & another: Petition under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashal of proceedings in Crime No.162/2025 of P.S. Chilkur, Suryapet District, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as Accused No.3 for offences punishable under Sections 338, 318(4), 319(2) and 61(2) BNS. The Court, after considering rival submissions and perusing the record, found no specific allegations against the petitioner attracting the ingredients of Section 338 BNS, and noted that the other offences levelled against him are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years; it therefore held that the Investigating Officer ought to have issued notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. / Section 35(3) BNSS by following the Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar guidelines. The petition was disposed of (not quashed): petitioner directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on or before 12.12.2025, whereupon notice under Section 41-A/Section 35(3) is to be issued and the investigation conducted per those guidelines; failing appearance within the stipulated time, the Investigating Officer may proceed in accordance with law. Miscellaneous petitions closed.

[³³⁰³¹

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THURSDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 15963 OF 2025

Between

Gundepangu Kartheek, S/o Muthaiah, Aged about. 28 years, Occ. Private Job R/o. Narayanapuram Village, Chilkur Mandal, Suryapet District. At Present Residing at Yousufguda, Hyderabad.

... Petitioner

D

The State of Telangana, Rep by the Public Prosecutor, Through P.S. Chilkur. 2 Kodaru Rajesh, S/o. Roshaiah, Aged about.39 years, pcc. Private Job R/o. ChilkurVillage and Mandal, Suryapet District.

... RespondenUComplainants

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 against the Petitioner in Crime No.162/2025, on the file of P.S. Chilkur, Suryapet District.

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025

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 including arrest and appearance of the Petitioners in Crime.No.16212025. on the file of P.S. Chilkur, Suryapet District pending disposal of the Crl.P.

This Petition coming on for hearing upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri B. SRINIVAS REDDY BALAKISTI, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1, and none appeared for the Respondent No.2.

The Court made the following: OROER

I I t It I :: i

J

IN THE, HIGH^{COURT FOR THB STATEOF TEI-ANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE J.SREENI/ASRAo}

o. I of

Date; 04.12.2025

Between

Gundepangu^Kartheek.

...petitioner

AND

J'he State of^Telangana, Rep. by its^{PublicProsecutor,} 1'hrough P.S.Chilkur^{and another'}

respondents

Order

This Criminal^{petition is filed seekingto quash the proceedings} in crirne No.162^{0f 2025,on the file of the chilkurPolice Station,} Suryapet,^{rvfterein the petitioner was arrayed as accused No'3, for the} orlences^{punishabreunder Sections 338,318(4),319(2)and 61(2) of the} Bharatiya Nyaya^{Sanhitha,2023 (for short 'BNS')'}

Heard Mr.B.Srinivas^{Reddy, leamed counsel lbr the petitioner} and Mr.Jitendar^{Rao veeramalla,learned AdditionalI'ublic Prosecutor} appearing^{f<rr respondent No.1 /State.}

2

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed the alleged offences and has been falsely implicated in the present crime. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the entire allegations are levelled againpt accused Nos. l, 2, and 4. He fuither submitted that basing on the confession statements given by the other accused the petitioner has been implicated in the present crime. Therefore, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner is a a clear abuse of the process of law.

Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there is conspiracy between accused Nos.l ,2 and 4 and there are specific allegations against the petitioner also. He further submitted that whether the petitioner has committed the offence or not has to be revealed during the course of investigation and at this stage, the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashment of proceedings

Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that there are no specific allegations against the petitioner to attract the ingredients of Section 338 of the BNS and the other offences levelled against the petitioner are punishable with an imprisonment of less than seven y@rs. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the

Investigating Otficer ought^{to have issued notice under Section4l-A of} Cr.P.C./Section 35(3) of^{the BharatiyaNagarikSurakshir Sanhita,2023} (for short, 'RNSS'), by following^{the guidelines fbrrnulatedby the} Hon'ble Ape>. Court in Arnesh^{KumarVs. Stute of Bittoi"t,}

For thc lorgoing^{reasons,petitioner/accusedNo.3 is directed to} appear bef,orc: the [nvestigating^{Officeron or before12.12.2025.On such} appearance c,f the^{petitioner/accusedNo.3, the InvestigatingOfficer is} directed to issue notice under^{Section4l-A of the Cr.P.Cl./Section35(3)} of the BNS:i attcl to conduct the^{investigationin acc':rrdance withthe} guidelines lrrid clown by the Hon'ble Apex^{Court rn Arnesh Kuntsr's} case supt'a. ht the event of the^{petitionerfailing to ttppear before the} Investigating Oflicer within the stipulated^{time, the Investigating Officer} shall be entit.lecl to^proceed further^{in accordance with law.}

With the above direction, the criminal petition^{is disposed of.}

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending^{if a-ny, stand closed-}

\

//TRUE COPY/

SD/- A. SREENIVASA^REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The ll Additiona Judicial First Class tvlagistrate at^Kodad.

The Station House Officer, Chilkur Police Station, Suryapet^District.

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the^{Stateof Telangana at} Hyderabad [OUT]

One CC to SRI SRINIVAS REDDY BAIAKISTI,^Advocate [OPUC]

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED i0411212A25

liiE S
(
U 5 rt[ 2025
*

ORDER

CRLP.No.15963 of 2025

DISPOSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION
(r
5 t