Disposed

Mandagiri Swamy Yadav v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Sept 2026CRLP/13558/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, accused No.3 in FIR No.239/2026 under Sections 318(4) and 351(2) BNS, sought quashing of proceedings claiming he was a bona fide purchaser of property and allegations against him were civil in nature. The court disposed of the petition at the admission stage with consent of parties, directing the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer by 19.09.2026 and cooperate with investigation, while the IO was directed to follow Section 35(3) BNSS procedure and Arnesh Kumar guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to appear before Investigating Officer by 19.09.2026 and cooperate with investigation; IO directed to follow Section 35(3) BNSS procedure and Arnesh Kumar guidelines; petitioner entitled to submit reply to notice and produce documents.

Mandagiri Swamy Yadav Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶3

AT HYDERABAD

¶4

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 13558 oF 2026

¶8

Between:

¶9

Mandagiri Swamy Yadav, S/o. Mandagrii Mashanna, Aged about^{46 years,} Occ: Social Worker, Rl/o. H.No.13-3-10501421N1 , Gangaputra^Nagar, Jiyaguda, Hyderabad.

¶10

...Petitioner/Accused No.3

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep by Public Prosecutor, Through Nallakunta Police Station, Hyderabad, High Court for'the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶13

Nivedita Dixit, D/o Late. Manik Rao Kamkolkar, Aged Major, Occ. Not known to the^petitioner, Rl/o. H.No.2-1-47915, Street No.7, Bagh Amberpet, Nallakunta, Hyderabad.

¶14

...RespondenU Defacto-Complainants

¶15

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be^pleased to call for records to and in connection with FIR No.239 of 2026, dated. 27.07.2026 on the file of the lV Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad^(Nallakunta Police Station) for the offences^punishable U/Sec 318(4);^{351 (2)} BNS and^{quash the} same against the Petitioner /A3.

¶16

l.A. NO: 2OF 2026

¶17

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS^praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be^pleased to stay all further^proceedings of FIR No.239 of 2026, dated.27.07.2O26^{on the file of} the lV Addl. Chief Judicial lMagistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad^{(NallakuntaPolice} Station), against the^{petitioner/A3, pending} disposal of the Criminal^petition.

¶18

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the Memorandum^of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon^hearing the^{arguments of Sri Mohd.} lslamuddin Ansari, Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. Jithender^{Rao Veeramalla,} Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent^No.'1 and^{of Mr. D. Sanjay} Kumar, counsel representing Mr. S. Sridhar, Advocate for the Respondent^No.2.

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

IN THE TIIGH COURT FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

¶22

CzuMINAL PETITION No.13558 of 2026

¶23

CNR. No.HBH C0 l0 57 0092026

¶24

Date:08.09.2026

¶25

Between

¶26

Mandagin Su amy Yadav

¶27

...Petitioner/accused No.3

¶28

AND

¶29

The State of T elangana and another

¶30

..Respondents

¶31

ORDER

¶32

This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in F.l.R.No.239 of 2026 of Nallakunta Police Station, Ilyderabad, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.3, for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), and 351(2) of the Bharatiy'a Nyaya Sanhita,2023 (for short, 'BNS'r.

¶33

Heard Nlohd. Islamuddin Ansari, leamed counsel for the petitioner, NIr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Iearned Additional public Prosecutor firr respondcnt No.1, and Mr. D. Sanjay Kumar, leamed counsel representing Mr. S. Sridhar for respondent No.2.

¶34

¶35

-r

¶36

With their consent, the criminal petition is disposed of at^the stage of admission.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated in the present case only on the ground that he purchased the subject property from accused No.2 and others under a registered sale deed bearing document No.2536 of 2026, dated 09.06.2026, for valid consideration. The petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of the said property. Respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint alleging that the other aqcused, suppressing the fact that the subject property is^joint family property, executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. According to the complaint, accused No.2 had no absolute right over the said property. The said ailegations are levelied only against accused No.2 and the other accused, and there are no allegation made against the petitioner. Even according to the allegations levelled in the complaint, the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, are not attracted against the petitioner. The allegations levelled in the complaint are purely civil in nature. Hencb, the continuation of the proceedings

¶38

¶39

against the petitioner is a clear abuse of the process of law. He further subnritted that the offences levelled against the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment of iess than seven years. The Investigating Officer, without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) ofthe Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') and without following the guidelines formulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs, State of Bihart, is proceeding further in the matter and the same is contrary to law.

¶40

Per contra, leamed counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioner himsetf, in the memorandum ,tf grounds, has stated that, in view of the cloud over the title to the subject property, he is taking steps to cancel the sale deed and made a request to his vendor to refund the sale consideration. However, as on date, the petitioner has not taken any steps agajnst his vendor Hence, the pe titioner is not entitled to seek qua shment of the proceedings against him

¶41

6 Leamed Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations levelled in the complaint against the 'i:o^{t+ r} 8 scc zr3

¶42

¶43

petitioner to attract the above said offences. Whether the said allegations are'true or not, the same will be revealed during the course of investigation. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashment of the proceedings at the threshold. However, the offences levelled against the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, the Investigating Officer had already issued notice under Section 35(3) BNSS to accused No.1 on 30.07.2026 and he will follow the same procedure as contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and also the guidelines formulated by the Apex Cowt in Arnesh Kumar (supra) in respect of petitioner/accused No.3

¶44

7 . Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the offences levelled against the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. Even according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the Investigating Officer had already issued notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS to accused No.1.

¶45

¶46

8 In viel ol the same, the petitioner is di-ected to appear before the hrvestigating Officer on or before 1909.2026 and on such appearance, the lnvestigating Officer is directed to follow^the plocedure contemplated under the provisions of the BNSS, and also the guidelnes formulated by the Hon'ble Apex^{Court in} Arnesh Kumar^(supra) and the^petitioner shall^{co':perate with the} investigation. [t is needless to mention that the^{petitioner is entitied} to submit reply to the notice under Section 35(3)^{of the BNSS by} raising all thc pleas rvhich are available to him^{and he is also} entitled to submit the documents, if any,^{rvhichare in his custody,} to the Investigating Officer.

¶47