Disposed

Y. Vinay Goud v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Feb 2025CRLP/2505/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners accused in FIR No. 200 of 2025 for cheating and criminal breach of trust sought quashing. Counsel instead sought directions that police issue notice under Section 35(3) BNSS before arrest. The court disposed of the petition directing investigation with such notice and compliance with Arnesh Kumar guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Investigation to continue with notice under Section 35(3) BNSS to petitioners and adherence to Arnesh Kumar guidelines; miscellaneous petitions closed.

Y. Vinay Goud Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

t3257 |

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2505 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Y. Vinay Goud, Sio. Y. Balraj Goud, Age. 39 years,Occ. Business, R/o. H. No. 't -55, Anand Nagar, ttledipally, ttledchal-Malkajgiri, Telangana.

¶9

P. Sharath Kumar, S/o. P. Pandu Goud, Age.25 years,Occ. Business, R/o. H. No. 1-55, Anand Nagar, Medipally, Medchal-tvlalkajgiri, Telangana.

¶10

Uday Bhaskar Goud, S/o. Balraj Goud, Age.42 years,Occ. Business, R/o. H. No. 1-55, Near Water Tank, Boduppal, Medipally, MedchaliMalkajgiri, Telangana

¶11

...Petitioner/Accused No.1 to 3

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana, rep. by the public Prosecutor High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad-

¶14

Tqpal Singh, S/o Omprakash, Aged. 48 Years, Occ. Pvt Employee, R/o Plot.No. 270, Ghatkesar Village, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Telangana.

¶15

...Respondents

¶16

Petition under Section 528 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the entire proceedings Crime No. 2O0 of 2025 daled 12-02-2025 on the file of Medipally Police Station, Rachakonda

¶17

l.A. NO: 2OF 2025

¶18

:^{Petition under Section528 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 Petitioners in connection with Crime No. 200 of 2025 dated 12-02-2025 on the file of Medipally Police Station, Rachakonda^pendang disposal of the main criminal^petition.

¶19

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the A/emorandum of Grounds of criminzrr Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri s vrpLAV SIMHA REDDY, Acrvocate for the petitioner and the pubric prosercutor (TG) on beharf of the Resporrcrr:nt No. I and None appeared for the Respondent No.2.

¶20

The Court made tht: following: ORDER

¶21

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI}

¶22

CRIMINAL PETI^{TION No.2505 of 2025}

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

ThisCriminalPetitionisfiledbythepetitioners-accusedNos.l to 3 to^{quash the proceedings against them in FIR No'200 of 2025 of PS} Medipally,^{registered for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of} tPc

¶25

Heard^{Sri S.Viplav Simha Reddy, learned counselfor the} petitioners and sri Jithender^{RaoVeeramalla, learned AddltionalPublic} Prosecutor for^{the State}

¶26

I I

¶27

03 Though this^{petition is filed for quashingthe proceedingsin} the crime,^{during the course of arguments, learned counselfor the} petitioners has sought for^{directionsto the Police to proceedwith} I I investigation by^{issuing notice underSection35(3) of the Bharatiya} Nagarik Suraksha^{Sanhita (for short 'BNSS')(PreviouslySection41-A of} the Code of Criminal^Procedure)

¶28

ln view^{of the above,without going into merits of the matter'} this Criminal^{Petition is disposedof directingthe Police concernedto} proceed with the investigation^{in the above crime after issuing notice under} Section 35(3) of^{the BNSS (Previously Section 41-A of Cr'P'C') to the} petitioners-accusedNos.lto3andthelnvestigatingofficershallalso

¶29

.!t ! '----"*:l=1-!L1!.=!ql

.* ,,*

follow the gu delines formulated by the Honourable Suprreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and anotherl scrupulolrsly. However, the petitioner:;-accused Nos.1 to 3 shall submit their defense and cooperate with the lnvestigating Officer as and when required by furnishing information and produce all relevant documents/material required for the purpose of the investigation and the Investigating Officer sh all consider the same before filing appropriate report before the learned Magistrate concerned.

¶34

\A/ith the above directions, this Criminal Petit on.is disposed

¶35

of.

¶36

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

¶37

closed

¶38

Sd/- L. LAKSHMI^BABU A ISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPYII

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The PJCJ^{cum lV-A Metropolitan Magistrate Court Medchal Mallrajgiri District'} z i[53tiii"" Upoal at LB rii,]i"'^{Nzrgar, otr"6i, RR Dist'} -rtredipaily potice -station. Rachakond.a Dist . 5 o;".,"cE;'sR^{SVIPLAV'sIMHAR'EDDY,AdvocatetqPUCl} - ;. i;; dd.io^{6,,, p,jnliJpiosecutor,High Court for the Stateof Tt':langanaat} Hyderabad [OtJTl

¶43

Two CD^CoPies

<br>SM/gh
+

t eoz) a scc zzs

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2010212025

ORDER

CRLP.No.25C|S of 2025

¶50

i;lo'
.n
li
i ?1rP'il lffi c,1
at
I

¶51

DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION

¶52

il [-1,

Y. Vinay Goud v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y. Vinay Goud 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

Habibuddin Mohammed Vs The State of Telangana

S.Mahipal Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Kamran Shahbaaz @ Syed Gulam Mohammed Kamran Vs The State of Telangana

Sri. Borra Yogesh Vs The State of Telangana

Nagole Digvijay Samrat, Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Vatsavayi Svsr Krishna, Vs State of Telangana