Disposed¶40

Marepally Sai Ram v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC17 Dec 2025CRLP/16985/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quash petition; Section 528 BNSS 2023; FIR No. 425 of 2025 PS Maheswaram Rachakonda; Sections 351(2) and 352 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023; Section 35(3) BNSS procedure; Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 guidelines; no view on merits; cooperation with investigation; Telangana High Court; Justice J. Sreenivas Rao; 17.12.2025; CRLP 16985 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

Quash not granted; subject to the directions (IO to follow Section 35(3) BNSS procedure and Arnesh Kumar guidelines and conclude investigation; petitioner to cooperate, failing which action per law), the Criminal Petition is disposed of; miscellaneous applications, if any, stand closed. ¶40

Marepally Sai Ram Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings in F.I.R. No. 425 of 2025 of PS Maheswaram, Rachakonda, registered for offences under Sections 351(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, against the petitioner/accused should be quashed. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

Without expressing any view on the merits of the case, the Investigating Officer is directed to scrupulously follow the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, and conclude the investigation.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner/accused shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer for the investigation, make himself available as and when required, and provide the information/documents sought by him to conclude the investigation.

¶35

Key takeaways

If the petitioner/accused fails to cooperate with the Investigating Officer for investigation, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to take action against him in accordance with law.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Telangana High Court (J. Sreenivas Rao), 17.12.2025, CRLP No. 16985 of 2025: Criminal petition under Section 528 BNSS 2023 seeking quash of F.I.R. No. 425 of 2025 of PS Maheswaram, Rachakonda, registered for offences under Sections 351(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The Court, without expressing any view on the merits, disposed of the petition directing the Investigating Officer to scrupulously follow the procedure under Section 35(3) BNSS and the guidelines in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, and conclude the investigation; the petitioner/accused to cooperate with the investigation and remain available, failing which the Investigating Officer may act in accordance with law. Miscellaneous applications closed.

¶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: 16985 OF 2025

¶6

Between:

¶7

Marepally Sai Ram, S/o. Late Shamulu, aged 35^years, Occ. Business, H,No 3-1, Pedda Gollapalli, Gollapalli Kalan, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana

¶8

... Petitioner/Accused

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana,, Rep by Public Prosecutor, Maheswaram^PS, Rachakonda, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana

¶11

Sri Taguturi Srikanth, Sio Babu, Aged.25yrs, Occ. Fitness Trainer,^Pedda Gollapalli, Gollapalli Kalan,Ranga Reddy District, Telangana.

¶12

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶13

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS 2023^praying that in^the circumstances stated rn the Memorandum of Grounds^{of Criminal Petition, the} High Court may be to QUASH the F.l.R No 425 ol²⁰²⁵ on^{the file PS} Maheswaram, Ranga Reddy District. in^respect of^{Petitioner/Accusedin the} interest of Justice

¶14

l.A. NO: 1OF 2025

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P .C^praying thatⁱⁿ the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Crimirial^{Petition,the HighCourt may} be pleased to STAY all further^{proceedingsin F.l.R No 428of 2025 on the file of} Police Station Maheswaram, Ranga^{ReddyDistrict, in the interest of Justice,} pending disposal of the above Quash petition.

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the Memorandum^of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the^argumentsof Mr B SUDHAKAR REDDY, Advocate for the^{Petitioner and Mr. JITHENDERRAO} VEERAMALLA, the Additional Public^{Prosecutoron behalfof RespondentNo.'1} and none appeared for the Respondent^No.2

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

HIGH COURT FoR THE STATE oF TELANGAII, \ AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE J. SRI). )NTVAS RAO

¶19

CRIMINAL PE"[TION No. 16985 ot 2o2s

DATE: I 7.L2.202s

Between:

Marepally Sai Ram

AND

Peti tioner/accused

The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public^prosecutor, Maheswaram PS, Rachakonda, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana and another

¶26

. Respondents

¶27

:ORDE R:

¶28

This criminal petition has been filed by the retitioner/ accused seeking to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.N::42s of 2o2s oI Maheshwaram Police Station, Rachakonda, re gistered for the offences under Sections 351(2) and 352 of tht, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short,^,BNSJ.

¶29

Heard Mr. B. Sudhakar Reddy, Iearned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, r arned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. I Stz te.

¶30

Learnecl counsel for the petitioner submitted t tat thc petitioner has not committed the offences and he rvas falseh mplicated in the present --crime. Even accordirlg to the allegatio rs made in the

¶31

¶32

complairrt,^{the ingredientsof the offences underSections 351(2) and} 352 of the^{BNS are not attracted againstthe petitioner'Hence'} continuation^{of the proceedings againstthc petitioner is clearabuse} of the procession^{of the law'}

¶33

Per contra,learned^{Assistant Public Prosecutor submittedthat} the offences^{levelled againsttl"re petitioner are punishable with} imprisonment^{of less than sevenyears and the InvestigatingOffrcer} will follow^{the due procedureas contemplated undcr law'}

¶34

Taking into^{considerationthe facts and circumstancesof the} case and the^{submissions made by the respective parties, u'ithout} expressing^{any view on the merils of the case' the Investigating} Offrcer is^{directedto scrupulouslyfotlorv the procedure contemplated} under Section^{35(3) of the BNSSancl the guidelinesissued by the} Apex Court^{in Arnesh KumarVs' State of Biharr and conclude the} investigation.

¶35

6.Itismadeclearthatthepetitioner/accusedshallcooperate with the Investigating^{Ofhcerfor the investigationand make himself} available to^{him as and when required and also provide the} information/^{documentsassought by him toconcludethe} investigation.

'(2014)^{8 scc 273}

If the petitioner/accused fails to col rerate with the Investigating Officer for investigation, the Invest:g ating Offrcer is at liberty to take action against him in accordance w t r law.

¶40

8 Subject to the above directions, the Cr-i rrinal petition is disposed of.

¶41

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, r; rall stand closed. SD/- C DEEPIKA ASSiI STANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

l I