Syed Mohammed Ghouse Vs The State of Telangana

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 F.l.R No. 21l 2022, registered with the EOW Team- Vlll, CCS Hyderabad.

¶14

l.A. NO: 2OF 2025

¶15

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 Proceedings, including the arrest of Petitioner/accused, in the F.l.R No. 2112022, registered with the EOW Team- Vlll, CCS Hyderabad, arising from the information of respondent No.2.

¶16

Y

¶17

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the tr"4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri M Rathan singh, Advocate for the petitioner and sri Jithender Rao Veermalla, Additionar Pubric prosecutor on beharf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2.

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

¶20

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3518 of 2o25

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This petition is {iled seeking quashment of Crime No.21 of 2022, dated 22.01.2022 on the file of Central Crime Station (C.C.S.), Hyderabad District, against the petitioner.

¶23

Heard Mr. M.Ratan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No. 1 State.

¶24

The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.7 in Crime No.21 of 2O22 of Central Crime Station (C.C.S.), Hyderabad Disrrict, registered for t}i"e offences punishable under Sectio ns 4O6, 42O, 465, 468 read with Section 34 of IpC.

¶25

As per the petitioner, his name u,as listed centring on the confessional statement of the other accused, u.hich lvas recorded in the year 2O2O and the lapse in time itself is explaining absence of any material against the petitioner. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against him vtould be an abuse ofprocess.

¶26

At hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner woulcl submit that though the petitioner is readv to cooperate with the ... .^{lnvestigationa:td preparedto meet the challenge} in the trial, he is

¶27

I

¶28

apprehending coercive action by the investigation agencl. as no notice has been issued under Section 35(3) of BNSS so far and prayed for necessary direction u,ould redress his grievance for the present and liberty may be granted to approach this Court even if he. makes out a case for quashment of the proceedings

¶29

Learned Additional Pubiic Prosecutor u'ould fairly submit that ali the offences alleged against the petitioner/ accuseci No.7 are punishable rvith an imprisonment for a period up to seven (07) years, as such, there r,vould be no impediment to the police . concerned in issuance of notice under Section 3S(3) of the BNSS.

¶30

I have perused the material.

¶31

Having regard to the submissions of the learned counsel that the petitioner is in agreement to engage himself in the process and the offences alleged against the petitioner/ accused No.7 in the crime are punishable with imprisonment under 7 vears, the investigating officer in Crime No. 2l of 2022 of Central Crime Station (C.C.S.), Hyderabad District, is directed to serve notice under Section 35 (3) of BNSS on the petitioner/ accused No.7 and proceed further as per the procedure and guidelines

¶32

\ t

¶33

*7

¶34

contemplated in the dictum of the I{on'ble Apex Court in Arnesh

¶35

Kumar u. State of Biharl.

¶36