Disposed

Ramanthapuram Krishna v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC5 Feb 2026CRLP/1379/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court refused to quash an FIR alleging damage to Nakshabata and obstruction, holding that the facts require investigation to resolve the dispute over public versus private land ownership and that procedure under Section 35(3) BNSS was not fully followed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition dismissed; Investigating Officer directed to issue notices to accused Nos. 1 to 7 under Section 35(3) BNSS and follow Arnesh Kumar guidelines.

Ramanthapuram Krishna Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

[^3303l

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1379 OF 2026

¶7

Between:

¶8

Ramanthapuram Krishna, S/o. Late Kistaiah, aged: 57 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o H.No.4 - 3712, Sangareddy, Cheriyal, SangaReddy, Telangana-502285

¶9

Ramanthapuram Srinivas, S/o. Late Kistaiah, aged: 58 years, Occ: Agriculture, Rlo 4-3713, Sangareddy, Cheriyal, SangaReddy, Telangana502285

¶10

Ramanthapuram Dasharath, S/o. Kistaiah, aged: 55 years, Occ: Agriculture, Rlo 4-37l4,Sangareddy, Cheriyal, SangaReddy, Telangana-502285

¶11

Ramanthapuram Ramulu, S/o. Kishtaiah, aged: 50 years, Occ: Agriculture, Rlo 4-37 ll,Sangareddy, Cheriyal, SangaReddy, Telangana-502285

¶12

Ramanthapuram Prabhu, S/o.Krishna, aged:26 years, Occ: Agriculture, Rlo 4-3712,Sangareddy, Cheriyal, SangaReddy, Telangana-502285

¶13

Ramanthapuram Arun@Arun Kumar, S/o R. Dasharath aged about 26, Occ:Agriculture Rlo 4-37 14, Sangareddy, Cheriyal, SangaReddy, Telangana502285

¶14

Ramanthapuram Kishan@Kethan@Tarun Kumar, S/o Dasharath aged about 23 years, Occ:23, R/o. H.No.4 - 3714, Sangareddy, Cheriyal, Sanga Reddy, Telangana-502285

¶15

Ramanthapuram Bharath Kumar, S/o Narsimlu aged about 35 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o 2 -83, Sangareddy, Cheriyal, SangaReddy, Telangana-502285

¶16

[email protected] Kumar, @ S/o B.K Bhikshapathi Aged about 31 years, Occ: Agriculture Rlo 4 - 6711 , Sangareddy, Cheriyal, SangaReddy, Telangana-502285

¶17

...Petitioner/Accused

¶18

AND

¶19

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶20

The Tahsildar, Mandal Kandi, Sangareddy District - SO2 285

¶21

...Respondents

¶22

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 No. 7 ot 2026 on the fite of THE COURT OF HONORABLE ADDL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT SANGAREDDY.

¶23

l.A. NO:2OF 2026

¶24

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 for all further proceedings in quash the FtR No. 7 of 2026 on the file of the THE COURT OF HONORABLE ADDL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT SANGAREDDY.

¶25

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri N.Joy, Advocate for the Petitioners and sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, Additional public prosecutor for the State of Telangana, on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2.

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

HIG U THE F LAN AT

¶28

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO}

¶29

CRIMIN AL^{PETTTION N0.1379of 2026}

¶30

Datez 05.02.2026

¶31

¶32

Ramanthapuram^{Krishnaand 8 others}

¶33

...Petitioners

¶34

AND

¶35

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public^Prosecutor, High Courl for the^{State of Telangana,} Hyderabad^{and another}

¶36

Respondents

¶37

ORDER

¶38

This Crirninat^{Petition has been filed seeking to quash the}

¶39

proceedings in F.l.R.^{No. 7 of 2026 on the file of Indrakaran Police} Station, Sangareddy,^{wherein the petitioners'are arrayed as accused} Nos. I to 9 lor^{the oft'ences punishable under Sections 324,285,} 270, and 223^{read with section3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya} Sanhita, 2023^{(for short, "llNS").}

¶40

Heard Mr.N.Joy,^{Iearnedcounsel for the petitionersand} Mr.M.Ramachandra^{Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor} for the respondents.

¶41

Learned counsel^{for the petitioners submitted that petitioner}

¶42

Nos.l to 3 and two^{others are the owners and possessorsof the}

¶43

¶44

property covered under Sy. No.l14, admeasuring Ac.l-28^guntas, situated at Cheriyal Village, Kandi Mandal,^{SangareddyDistrict.} When respondent No.2 and others tried^{to interfere with the subject} property, petitioner Nos.l to 3 and two others^{filed a suit in O.S.} No.387 of 2025 on the file of^{the leamedPrincipalJunior Civil} Judge, Sangareddy, against^{respondent No.2 and six others,} seeking a perpetual injunction^{restraining the defendants therein} from interfering with the suit schedule^{property.While the said} civil suit is pending before the cornpetent Civil^{Court, respondent} No.2 filed the present complaint on^{28.01.2026, alleging that the} petitioners were obstructing the transportation^{of vehicles, causing} inconvenience to the villagers, and^{damagingthe Nakshabata,} thereby giving a criminal colour to a^{purely civil dispute. The} nature of the allegations is^purely civil^{in nature, and the present} complaint has been frled as a counterblast^{to the civil suit.}

¶45

He further submitted that the alleged^{Nakshabatais private} land belonging to petitioner Nos.l to^{3 and two others,and that the} same forms part and^parcel of the^{suit schedule property.} Respondent No.2, without following^{the mandatoryprocedure} prescribed under Section 175 of the BNSS,^{lodged the complaint.} 5. He further submitted that the offences^{levelledagainst the} petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of^{less thanseven}

¶46

¶47

years. The Investigating Officer, without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (f,ot short 'BNSS'), as well as the guidelines formulated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. Stote of Bihort, is proceeding with the matter, which is contrary to law. Hence, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse of the process of law. [n support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohammed lbrahim ond others^v.

¶48

Stute of Bihar sncl sttother23.

¶49

Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, basing on the instructions furnished by the Sub-Inspector of Police, lndrakaran Police Station, Sangareddy, dated 04.02.2026, submitted that the subject Nakshabata has been in existence for a long time and has been used by the villagers and others as a public pathway. The sarne is recorded as a public bata in the Gram Panchayat records as well as in the revenue records. The Giridawar, Kandi Mandal, and the Mandal Surveyor, after conducting a survey, subrnitted a report dated 28.01 .2026, wherein it is stated that the Nakshabata is not private land. The petitioners,

¶50

'^{( zot+)8 scc 273}

¶51

'(zOOg)^{S SuprenreCourtCases 75I}

¶52

¶53

without having any manner of^{right,damaged the Nakshabata,} thereby causing inconvenience^{to the Gram Panchayatof Cheriyal} Village, villagers and other^{pattadarsof CheriyalVillage.}

¶54

He further submitted that the^{Investigating Officerhas} already served notices^{under Section35(3) of the BNSS to accused} Nos.8 and 9 and is ready^{to serve notices to accused Nos.l to 7;} however, they are not available.^{He also submitted that the} statement of L.W.1^{has already been recorded and the investigation} is in progress, therefore, the^{petitioners are not entitledto seek} quashing of the proceedings at this stage.

¶55

Having considered the rival^{subrnissions made by the} respective parties and upon^{perusal of the material available on} record, it reveals that^petitioner Nos.l^{to 3 and two others have} filed a suit in O.S. No.387 of^{2025 on the file of the learned} Principal Junior Civil Judge,^{Sangareddy, against respondent No.2} and six others, seeking^{perpetual injunctionin respectof the suit} schedule property mentioned^{therein.Accordingto the learned} counsel for the petitioners,^{the allegedNakshabataat Cheriyal} Village is also part and^parcel of^{the suit schedule property and} their patta land. According^{to the prosecution, the Nakshabatahas} been used bV fe^{villagers for a long time and the sameis recorded} in the Gram Panchayat^{records as well as in the revenue records as}

¶56

¶57

Nakshabata and the same is not private property of the petitioners. whether the subject Nakshabata belongs to petitioner Nos.l to 3 and others, as claimed in the suit, or is it a public road as alleged by the prosecution, is a disputed question of fbct and the same cannot be adjudicated in the present case.

¶58

tt is pertinent to mention that the issue involved in the case on hand, namely whether the petitioners damaged the existing nakshabatalpathway and obstructed the transportation of vehicles, thereby causing inconvenience to the villagers and neighbouring landowners of Cheiryal village or not, has to be resolved during the course of investigation, especially since there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioners and the investigation is under progress. Hence, this court is not inclined to quash the proceedings at the stage of crime.

¶59

ln Md.Ibrahim supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that execution of a sale deed by a person claiming the property as his own, even if he has no title, does not amount to forgery under Sections 467 or 471 rPC, as it does not constitute making a "false document" under Section 464 IPC. The court further held that ch'eating u,]C3: Section 420 IPC is not made out in the absence of deception or dishonest inducement, particularly when the complaint is by a third party and not the purchaser. criminal

¶60

t.'

¶61

¶62

proceedings should not be^{used to give a criminal colourto civil} disputes; accordingly,^{chargesunder Sections 420, 467, 471 and} 504 IPC were^{quashed,while those under Sections323 and 341} IPC were sustained.

¶63

1 l. The decision in Md.^{Ibrohim supra dealt with allegations} arising out of execution^{of sale deeds and claims of forgeryand} cheating in relation to^{title over immovable property,which were} found to be predominantly^{civil in nature.In the present case' the} complaint discloses allegations^{of deliberatedamageto Nakshabata} land, obstruction to movement^{of vehicles,and interferencewith} public and revenue property,^{based on official reports of the} Girdawar and Mandal^{Surveyor. The offences alleged relate to acts} affecting public order and^{public convenience and do not arise out} of a dispute concerning^{executionof documentsor title. Therefbre,} the ratio laid down in the said^{decision does not applyto the facts} ofthe present case.

¶64

It is trite law that the^{mere pendency of the civil suit is not a} ground, especially civil suit is filed^{subsequent to the lodgingof} the criminal cornplaint and both^{are differentand distinct.}

¶65

¶66

It is relevant to mention that in K.Jogodish v. Udaya Kumar

¶67

G.5.4, the Hon'ble Apex Court has reaffirmed the well-settled principle that the same set of facts may give rise to both civil and criminal proceedings, and that availing civil remedy does not bar the initiation of criminal prosecution. The Courl relied heavily on precedents like Kamalatlevi Agarwal v. State of llt.B.5 and, Trisuns Chemical Inclustry v. Rajesh Agarwof, to reiterate that crirninal proceedings cannot be quashed merely because a civil dispute is also pending between the parties. In Kamuladevi Agarwal, it was categorically held that the pendency of, civil proceedirrgs does not justifu quashing criminal proceedings, especially where the allegations disclose a prima facie criminal of-fence. The Court observed that many acts of cheating occur in the context of commercial or financial transactions, and such a "civil profile" does not strip the act of its "criminal outflt." The Court also referred to State of Horyana v. Bhujan LalT and Rojesh Bajaj v. Stute (NCT of Dethi)8, which held that quashing of FIRs under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be limited to rare and exceptional cases. It emphasized that just because a transaction involves a

¶68

commercial or monetary element that alone is not a ground to rule

¶69

' lzozoy^{14 scc 552}

¶70

Q002) I SCC 555

¶71

o lnss; 8 scc 686

¶72

' 1992 Supp (l) SCC 335 '1reoo;3^{scc 259}

¶73

¶74

out criminal^{intent or proceedings. Ultimately, the Courl} concluded^{that the High Court had erred in quashing the criminal} proceedings,^{stressingthat criminal cases tnust proceed as per the} Cr.p.C.^{and cannot be halted solely due to parallel civil litigation,} regardless^{of the status or authority of the civil forum.}

¶75

14.^{The offences levelledagainstthe petitioners are punishable} with imprisonment^{of less than seven years. Therefore,the} Investigating^{Officer ought to have followed the mandatory} procedure^{prescribedunder Section 35(3)of the BNSS,as wellas} the guidelines^{formulated by the [{on'ble Apex Court in Arnesh} Kumar^suPra'

¶76

During^{the course of hearing, the leamed AdditionalPublic} prosecutor submitted that the Investigating Officer had already issued^{notices under Section35(3) of the BNSS to accused Nos.8} and 9 on^{02.02.2026 and he will issue similarnotices to the} accused^{Nos.l to 7.}

¶77

In^{view of the same, the [nvestigatingOfficeris directedto} issue notices^{under Section 35(3) of the BNSS to accusedNos.l to} 7 and to strictly^{follow the guidelinesformulated} by the Hon'ble Apex Court^{in Arnesh Kumsrsupra.ltis} needless to mention that the petitigners^{are entitledto submit} their reply/explanation, along with the documents^{available with} them, to the lnvestigating

¶78

¶79

Officer, including^{a copy of the plaintin O.S. No.387of 2025,as}

¶80

soon as they^{receive notices under Section 35(3)of BNSS.}

¶81