Disposed

Mr. Patibandla Rambabu, v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC17 Dec 2025CRLP/16970/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition to quash FIR against accused No.3, a bona fide purchaser of property from developer/accused No.1. Court found no specific allegations attracting Sections 316(5) and 338 BNS; directed investigation per Section 41-A CrPC/Section 35(3) BNSS notice and Arnesh Kumar guidelines, and disposed of the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mr. Patibandla Rambabu, Vs State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 16970 OF 2025

¶6

Between:

¶7

Mr. Patibandla Rambabu,, S/o. Patibandla Prakasa Rao, aged about 68 years, Occ. Consultant, Rl/o. Flat No. 201 (West Facing), 2nd Floor, Manideepika Apartment, Road No. 32, Panchvati Colony, Manikonda, Gandipet, Ranga Reddy District^- 500 004,

¶8

..PETITIONER/ACCUSED No. 3

¶9

AND

¶10

'1 . State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶11

Mrs. Anupama Tatipaka W/o. T. Madhu, aged about. 47 yeats, Occ.Business, R/o. H. No. 3-60, Murthuzaguda, near Moinabad Police Station, Ranga Reddy District.

¶12

...RESPONDENT No. 2/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶13

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 FIR No 64/2025 dated 12.09.2025, registered at Economic Offences Wing Cyb (Cyberabad) police station.

¶14

l.A. NO: 2OF 2025

¶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 stay all further proceedings including investigation and arrest in pursuance of FIR No 6412025 dated 12.09.2025, registered at Economic Offences Wing Cyb (Cyberabad) police station.

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M.V. Pratap Kumar, representing Sri C. Naren Sai,Advocate for the Petitioner, Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2.

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

¶19

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF l ELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREIT VIVAS RAO

¶21

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1697O Of

'1025

Date: L7.L2.2O25

Between

Mr. Patibandla Rambabu

¶26

Petitioner

¶27

AND

¶28

The State of Telangana. Represented b1, Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad arrd another.

¶29

-. espondents

¶30

ORDER

¶31

This Criminal Petition is hled seekinr to quash

¶32

the proceedings in Crime No.64 of 2025, r.tr thc file o[ the Econornic Oflences Wing (Cyberalr rd) Police Station, Cyberabad District, u,herein the pt. Itoner was arrayed as :rccused No.3, for the offences 1 unishable under Sections 318(4), 316(21, 316(5), ar.lJ, 336(3), 340(21r/w 6l(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhithz ,2023

¶33

Heard Mr. M.V.Pratap Kumar, learn,r,I counsei

¶34

representing N{r. C.Naren Sai, learned cour.r:el lbr the

¶35

#dr GSll:

¶36

)

¶37

petitioner through Video Conference and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional public prosecutor for respondent No. 1-State.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that the petitioner has purchased the property from the Developer/accused No.1 by paying valuable sale consideration and the petitioner 15a bona fi.de purchaser. The only allegation made in the complaint is that accused No. i alienated the propert5r pertaining to respondent No.2's share in favour of petitioner/accused No.3. The petitioner, therefore, is a victim rather than an accused. The essential ingredients of the offences under 318(4), 3L6(2), 316(5), 338, 336(3),340(2) rlw 61(21 of the BNS do not attract against the petitioner, especially the allegations are purely civil in nature. Hence, continuation of

u!;

proceedings against the petitioner is a c1,: rr abuse of process of law.

¶43

Per contra, learned Additional Publir: Prosecutor submitted that the offences under Sections 116(5), 338 may not attract against the petitioncr ar-rd other offences are applicable to him and the peti: oner is not entitled to sr:ek quashment at the ir^, tial stage, especially, when the investigation is under ll-ogress.

¶44

Having considered the rival submissior s made by the respective^parties and upon perusal of llLe material available on re<:ord, it reveals that there ar( 1cl speciflic allegations against the petitioner to ir tract the ingredients under Sections 316(5) and 3:8 of BNS especially the petitioner purchased the pr<: 1,ert1. lor a total consideration Rs.99,0O,00O/- an<i paid an amount of Rs. 78, OO,OOO/- to the develop, :-/accused No.7 and he is a bona fide purchaser. II:nce, this Court is of the view that the this Court is ,r- the view ---.-

¶45

tsts,:

¶46

¶47

that pima facie offence under Sectrlon 316(5) and 33g of BNS may not attract and tbr the ottrer offences the punishment prescribed is less than seven years. Hence, this Court is of considered view Investigating Officer ought to have follor.ted ihe procedure AS contemplated under Section 4l-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. 1973 (for short,'Cr.p.C.)/Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS) and also the .guidelines flormulated by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihol,r.

¶48

For the foregoing reasons, the Investigating Ofhcer is directed to issue notice under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C./Section 35(3) of the BNSS and follow the guidelines issued by the Apex Court tn Antesh Kumar supra. On such notice, the petitioner is entitled to submit reply/explanation by raising ail the pleas which were available to him ancl also he is entitled to enclose

¶49

'(2014)^{8 scc 273}

¶50

¶51

the documents, which are in his^possession to^the Investigating Officer along with reply and^{tl Le petitioner}

¶52

is directed [o co operate with the investigr]: on,

¶53