Disposed¶18

Garlapati Bhupal Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Feb 2026CRLP/10831/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Infructuous quash petition after cognizance: Crl.P.10831/2025, Telangana HC (10.02.2026) — petition to quash F.I.R. No.77/2025, Kanagal P.S., Nalgonda District (Ss.329(3), 324(4) r/w 3(5) BNS) disposed since final report filed and cognizance taken as C.C.No.966/2025; liberty granted to file fresh quash challenge against the C.C. on all previously pleaded grounds; no precedent discussed; useful for practice points on petitions rendered infructuous by supervening cognizance.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition disposed of; petitioner granted liberty to seek quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.966 of 2025 by raising all grounds pleaded in the present criminal petition; miscellaneous applications, pending if any, stand closed. ¶18

Garlapati Bhupal Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings in F.I.R. No.77 of 2025 of Kanagal Police Station, Nalgonda District, registered for offences punishable under Sections 329(3) and 324(4) read with 3(5) of the BNS, should be quashed. +1 more

¶12

Ratio / Principle

As the Investigating Officer filed the final report during pendency and the learned Magistrate took cognizance, numbering the case as C.C.No.966 of 2025, the cause in the criminal petition does not survive for consideration.

¶16

Key takeaways

In view of the above submission, the petitioner is granted liberty to avail the remedies available under law to seek quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.966 of 2025, if aggrieved, by raising all the grounds pleaded in the present criminal petition.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Telangana High Court, Hyderabad (single judge, Justice J. Sreentvas Rao as printed) — Crl.P. No.10831 of 2025, order dated 10.02.2026. Garlapati Bhupal Reddy, petitioner/accused, had sought quashing of the proceedings in F.I.R. No.77 of 2025 of Kanagal Police Station, Nalgonda District, registered for offences punishable under Sections 329(3) and 324(4) read with 3(5) of the BNS. On the learned Additional Public Prosecutor's instruction-based submission that, during the petition's pendency, the investigation was completed, a final report was filed and the Magistrate took cognizance numbering the case C.C.No.966 of 2025, the court held the cause in the criminal petition did not survive for consideration. The petitioner was given liberty to pursue available legal remedies to seek quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.966 of 2025, raising all grounds pleaded in the criminal petition, and the petition was disposed of; pending miscellaneous applications were closed.

¶1

l''

¶2

\tt

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD}

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{J. SREENTVAS RAO}

¶5

DATEz LO.O2.2O26

¶6

Detween^:

¶7

Garlapati BhuPal^ReddY

¶8

. . . . Petitioner/Accused

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public^Prosecutor, High Court at HYderabad and another

¶11

.Respondents

¶12

This Criminal Petition^{has been frled by the petitioner/accused} seeking to^{quash the proceedingsin F.l.R. No.77of 2025 of Kanagal} Police station,^{Nalgonda District,registered for the offences} punishable under sections^{329(3) and 324(4) read with 3(5) of the} BNS.

¶13

Mr. Jithender^{Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public} Prosecutor, based^{upon the instructions furnished by the concerned} officer, submitted^{that during pendencyof the criminalpetition,the} Investigating Oflicer^{conductedthe investigationand filed a final} report before^{the jurisdictionalMagistrate.The learned Magistrate} took cognizance^{and numbered the case as c.c-No.966of 2025' By}

¶14

¶15

¶16

virtue of the same, the cause in the criminal petition does not survive f<lr consideration.

¶17

[n view of the above said submission, the petitioner is granted liberty to avail the remedies as available under law seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.966 of 2025, if so he is aggrieved, by raising all the grounds, which were pleaded in the present criminal petition.

¶18