Itharaju Gopal Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Itharaju Gopal Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal Petition disposed of without entering into merits and without quashing the FIR; petitioners directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on or before 14.03.2025 between 11:00 a.m. and 05:00 p.m. and to cooperate by furnishing information/documents; Investigating Officer directed to follow Section 35(3) BNSS (previously Section 41-A CrPC) and the Arnesh Kumar guidelines before filing the appropriate report before the learned Magistrate; miscellaneous applications, if any, stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR/proceedings in Crime No. 228 of 2024 of PS Chityal, Nalgonda District (registered for offences punishable under Sections 118(1), 351(2) read with 3(5) BNS) against the petitioners (Accused Nos. A1 to A7) should be quashed.

Court's answer

Without going into the merits, since the punishment prescribed for the offences alleged against the petitioners is less than seven (07) years, the Court directed the petitioners to appear before the Investigating Officer on or before 14.03.2025 between 11:00 a.m. and 05:00 p.m., and directed the Investigating Officer to follow the procedure laid down under Section 35(3) BNSS and the guidelines formulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Arnesh Kumar case scrupulously.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners shall submit their defence and cooperate with the Investigating Officer, furnishing information and producing all relevant documents/material required for the investigation, which the Investigating Officer shall consider before filing the appropriate report before the learned Magistrate concerned.

Key takeaways

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of; miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. The FIR was not quashed and the question of quashing was left unaddressed on merits.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Telangana High Court (K. Sujana, J.), 28-02-2025 — Criminal Petition No. 2869 of 2025 under Section 528 BNSS by seven accused (A1 to A7) seeking quashing of the FIR in Crime No. 228 of 2024, PS Chityal, Nalgonda District, registered for offences punishable under Sections 118(1), 351(2) read with 3(5) BNS. Held: without going into the merits, since the punishment prescribed is less than seven years, the petitioners were directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on or before 14-03-2025 (11:00 a.m. to 05:00 p.m.), and the Investigating Officer was directed to follow the procedure under Section 35(3) BNSS (previously Section 41-A CrPC) and the guidelines formulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Arnesh Kumar case (case name as printed: 'Arnesh Kutnar u. State of Bllto;rr'; citation as printed '(2014) 8 SCC 2/') scrupulously; petitioners to submit their defence, cooperate and produce documents for consideration before the IO files the appropriate report. Petition disposed of; miscellaneous applications closed. Quashing not granted.

I I i I i I J

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

cRl INAL PETITION NO: 2859 OF 2025

Between:

llha.raju.9opal, S/o_ Lingaiafr, Age.-QO years, Occ. Agrt, R/o. Nereda Village. Chityal Mandal, Nalgonila Distric-t, TS.

llhat{u Sreenu, S/o Gopal, Age. 3g years, Occ. Agrl,

ltharaju Rarnesh, S/o^yeflaiah, Age. 42 years, Occ. Agrl,

ltharaju Ramesh, S/o Copal, Age. 40 years, Occ. Agrl,

ltharaju Kashaiah, S/o Edaiah, Age. 42 years Occ. Agrl,

ltharaju Linga Swamy, S/o Ramaiah, Age. 44 years, Occ, Agrl,

ltharaju Lingamma, Wo Gopal, Age. 57 years, Occ Agrl,

AII are R/o Nereda Village. Chityal Mandal, Natgonda District, TS.

...petitioner/Accused No. Al to A7

AND

The State of Telangana, Rep by its p p, High Court at Hyderabad.

Station House Officer,^pS Chityal, Nalgonda District

...Respondents/Complainants

Rapolu Yadaiah, S/o Lingalqh, A9e-r5^6 years, Occ.Agrt, R/o. Narenda Mllage, Chityal Mandal, Nalgond-a Distric[ TS.^'

... Respondents/De-facto Complainant

Petition under section 528 of B.N.s.s. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to Quash the FIR Sheet in Crime No. 228 of 2O24, pS Chityal, Nalgonda District.

r

l.A. NO: 2OF 2025

Petition under Section 528 of^{B.N.S.S. praying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum^{of Grounds of criminal Petition the High court may} be pleased to stay all the further^{Proceedings including investigation pertainsto} the Crime No. 228 of 2O24,^{PS Chityal, Nalgonda District.}

This Petition coming on for hearing,^{upon perusin!,the Memorandumot} Grounds of Criminal Petition^{and uponhearing the arguments of} Sri Seetharam Reddy Kancharla,^{Advocate for the Petitioner and the} Addl. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the^{RespondentNo.1.}

The Court made the following: ORDER

c4

THE HONOI'RABLE SMT.^{JUSTICE K. SUJANA}

CRIMINIIL PETITION^{No.2869 of 2o25}

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition^{isfiled under Section528} Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha^{Sanhita (for short'BNSSJ to} quash the proceedings against^{the petitioners in CrimeNo} '228 of 2024 of Chityal^{Police Station,NalgondaDistrict, registered} for the offences^{punishable underSectionsI i8(i),351(2) read} with 3(5) of Bharatiya^{Nyaya Sanhita(for short 'BNSJ'}

Heard Sri Seetha Ram^{Reddy Kancharla,learned} counsel for the^{petitionerand Sri JithenderRao Veeramalla,} learned Additional^{PublicProsecutorfor rcspondent No'l-} State.

Without^going into^{the merits o[ the casc, since the} punishment prescribed for^{the offencesallegcdagainstthe} petitioners is less than seven^{(O7) years, this Court deemsit} appropriate to direct^{the petitionersto appear belorethe} Investigating Officer on^{or before l4'O3'2O25 bctwcen I1:00} a.m. and 05:00^{p.m. and in turn, the Investigating Officer is} directed to follow the^{procedure laid dorvn under Scction 35 (3)}

2

of BNSS (previously section 4l-A of Cr.p.C.) and also the guidelines formulated by the Honble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kutnar u. State of Bllto;rr scrupulously. However, the petitioners shall submit their defense alld co-operate with the Investigating Officer as and when required by furnishing informatiorL and produce all relevant docurrrents/ material required f,rr the purpose of the investigation and the lnvestigatir.g Ofhcer shall consider the same before fiIing appropriatc report before the learned Magistrate r;oncerned.

Accorclir-rgly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

Misct llaneous applications, if any pending, shall also

sta nd closerl .

//TRUE COPY//

Sd,. V. HARI PRASAD A :n:.'":::: usecttoN oFFrcER

To,

1

The Judicial^r-irst Class Magistrate,^{at Nalgonda.}

2 The Station llouse Officer, Chityal^{PoliceStation'NalgondaDistrict'}

3 One CC to S'r Seetharam^{Reddy Kancharla,Advocate} [OPUCI

4 Two CCs to f)ublic Prosecutor, High^{Court for the State of Telangana} [our] 5 Two CD Copres

YIR/plp

tu

(2014) 8 SCC 2/

HIGH COURT

DATED:2810212025

ORDER

CRLP.No.2869 ot 2025

1 l{f- S fr r4:
oo 1 I lPn zozs c
{+
t
+ t)F.;rr41eH gO

DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION

,d\eN a &,