Disposed

Deepak Singh alias Kalu Singh v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Mar 2025CRLP/3400/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition seeking quashment of Crime No.161 of 2025 of RGI Airport Police Station registered against the petitioner under BNS provisions. The court declined to interfere at the threshold but directed the police not to take coercive action and to issue notice under Section 35(3) BNSS following Arnesh Kumar guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Police directed not to take coercive action against petitioner; investigation to continue with Section 35(3) BNSS notice per Arnesh Kumar guidelines.

Deepak Singh alias Kalu Singh Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

I i 1 l I I I t, I I i I

¶3

i i

¶4

HiGH^{COURT FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA}

¶5

TUESDAY,^{THE ELEVENTH DAY OF YIBCH} "?tioruousAND AND TWENTY FlvE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICEN'TUKARAMJI}

¶8

CRTMI NAL^{PETITTONNO:3400 0F 2025}

¶9

Between:

¶10

business^and

¶11

ffil35;p:[,3']ffi.fSl5r',',8'ft"?J!1i3l'?"iffi'5i131'$r%";..33#l'occ

¶12

...PETITiONER/ACCUSED^NO.1

¶13

AND

¶14

1 The State^{ofTelangana, through'Rep ' by Public Prosecutor by Honourable} Court

¶15

busin ess'

¶16

2 gl:Yfl*'Jl,,Silil?Xi;?i?''Hiifi :R:?"".8'Tfi :!l'1fl^3"33'I{l*occ

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

petition under section^{528 0f BNSS pr.uyilg that in the circumstances} stated in^{the Memorand'#;f A;';;;oic'iin"tp"tition'the High court mav} be oreased^{to ca for,n" I""iri,o"nlin to in rrn No. 161 oF 2025 dated} zabtzozson^{the file} "t^{pdHoiiilp"rtand quashthe same as abuse of the} process of^Law.

¶19

This Petition^{coming on for hearing' upon. perusing the Memorandum of} Grounds^{of Criminal p"titi"on unO upon hearingthe argumentsof Ms Uma Devi} Panidapu,^{Advocatetor. in"Petitionerand Mr' JithenderRao Veeramalla'} Additional^{Public Prosecut"''Higi Court for the Stateof Telangana'Hyderabad} on behalf^{of the State'}

¶20

The Court^{madethe following:ORDER:}

¶21

..-ra' i #

¶22

THE HoNOURABLE SRIJUSTICE N. TUh:ARAM.II

¶23

]RIMINAL P ETITI ON No.340 0 of 2025

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This lretiticrr is fired seeking quashment of the, crime f,ro.161 of 2025 of PS t(jl l\rrport, against the petitioner/accused No 1 .

¶26

Heard /ls;. p.Uma Devi, learned counsel f,tr p,e1111,>nur. ,nO [\rr'Jithender rlac' Veeramaila, rearned Addifionar t)ubric p.osecutor appearing for th€, respondent No..l_State. 3. The petiticrrr:r is arrayed as accused No.1 in crinre r,ro.161 of 2025 for the offerr:es under Sections 109, 126 (2), 324 (a) r/v., 3 (S) of Bharatiya Nyaya tianhita, 2023.

¶27

4' Learned ccunser for the petitioner submits that petitioner is President of riow Rlaksha Dal, involved in the activities of sav ng cows from irregar sra 'rgr^ter and in that course he has initiated pro()eedings against some nrisr:reants and fired compraint which was rumrrered as Crime No.160 of 2O2S in the same police Station, whch was registered under rii,::tion 1'l r/w. 3B of prevention of Cruelt,t to Animals Act, 1960. Nour lc terrorize the petitioner and others. w,ho are into these activitier;. ra,' counter brast the present case is foisterr. Hr r further submits that irasir.rry on the said complaint, petitioner rs a;:prerending his arrest, as s(r f;1. no notice under Section 35 (3) Bharaliya \agarik Suraksha Sanhite , ZO23 has been issued. Thus, ias therr is no

¶28

a l l I i i

¶29

substance^{in the Police report and consideringthe other aspects'} prayed for^{quashment of the proceedings'}

¶30

Learned^{Additional PublicProsecutorsubmits that thereare} specific^{averments in the complaint'However'as the alleged offences} are^{punishable under seven years of imprisonment The Police has no} objection^{to serveSection 35 (3) of Bharatiya NagarikSuraksha} Sanhita,^{2023 notice and to conductproceedingsas per the settled} procedure.

¶31

I have^{perusedthe materials on record'}

¶32

7 . Having^{regard to the submissions and as the Police reportis} reflecting^{the name of the petitioner'interferingwith the investigation} proceedings at^{the threshold isfound not proper' However'} considering^{the fact that the alleged offencesare punishable under} seven^{(07) years of imprisonment' the respondent No 1-Police is} directed^{not to take coercive action against the petitioner andproceed} with the^{investigation by issuanceof notice on the petitionerunder} Section^{35 (3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita' 2023and} following^{the guidelines enumerated in the directions of Hon'bleApex} Court in^{ArneshKumar v' Stateof Biha/ '}