Disposed

Jangam Dharmender @ Janga Dharmender v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Sept 2026CRLP/14631/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a petition seeking quashment of an FIR and stay of proceedings. It directed the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days to comply with mandatory arrest notification procedures under the BNSS.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on or before 19.09.2026 following mandatory procedure under Section 35(3) of BNSS and Arnesh Kumar guidelines.

Jangam Dharmender @ Janga Dharmender Vs The State of… — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS^RAO

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 14631 OF 2026

¶7

Between:

¶8

Jangam Dharmender @ Janga Dharmender, S/o Janga Narsimha^Swamy, Aged 50 years, Occ: Business, Rlo^11-24-131 , Shantinagar,^{2nd BankColony,} Warangal - 506002

¶9

... Petition e r/Acc used

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Represenfed by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad

¶12

Jakkula Rajkumar, S/o lt/londaiah, Aged 30 years, Occ. Private Employee, R/o Kannur Village, Kamlapur lvianal, Hanamkonda District.

¶13

... Res pon dents/Com^pla ina nt

¶14

Petitron under Sectron 528 of BNSS prayrng that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the l/lemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petrtion, the High Court may be^pleased to QUASH the FIR No.203 of 2026 on the file of PS Kamlapur at^{WarangalDistrict} against the^petttro ner/accused for the offences under u/s 420,290,506 of^IPC.

¶15

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2026

¶16

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS^praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the lt/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal^Petition, the High Court^may be^pleasedto grant STAY of all further proceedings includrng the arrest of^petitio ne r/Accu sed in FIR No.203 oI 2026 on the file of PS Kamlapur at Warangal District^registered against the petitione r/Accu sed for the offences under u/s 420,^{290.506 of IPC} pendrng disposal of the above Criminal Petition.

¶17

Th s F':irtron colr^-.j an^{fo' hearinqtloon perttsing the [/]emorandum of Grounds} of crrmtnal Petttron^an -^{Upon hrarrng the arguments of Sri N Amarnath Advocatefor} the Petrtroler ano S^{r .ltthenderRaoVeeramallathe Additional Public Prosecutoron} behalf of the Resporrd;nt^{No I and none appeared for the Respondent No'2}

¶18

The Court made thc^{following:ORDER}

¶19

IN THE IIIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAI)

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS^RAO

¶21

CRIMINAL PETITIONNo.14631of2026

¶22

CNR.No.HBH C0 10613 492026

¶23

Date : 08.09.2026

¶24

Between:

¶25

Jangam Dharmender @ Janga Dharmender

¶26

...Petitioner/accused

¶27

AND

¶28

The State ofTelangana and another

¶29

...Respondents

¶30

ORDER

¶31

This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.203 of 2026 on the file of Kamlapur Police Station, Warangal District, wherein the^petitioner was arrayed^as accused, registered for the offences punishable under Sections^420, 290, and 506 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023^(for short^'BNS').

¶32

Heard Mr. N Amarnath, leamed counsel for the^{petitioner and} Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, and leamed Additional^Public Prosecutor for respondent No. l. With their consent,^{this criminal} petition is disposed of at the stage of admission

¶33

rr-

¶34

¶35

Leamed counsel lor the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not comrnitted the alleged offences and has been falsely implicated in the present crime. The allegations levelled in the cornplaint arc purell' civil in nature in respect of monetary [ransaction. The petitioner has neither receir.ed any amount from respondent No.2 nor made any promise to provide employment to hirn. Even acci,rding to the complaint, the alleged incident took^place on 15.06.2021, whereas respondent No.2 lodged the^present cornplaint onlv on 26.07.2026, after lapse of nearly three^years, rvithout assigning an) reason for such inordinate deiay. He further submitted that the ot-fences alleged against the^{petitioneris punishable} with irnprisonment of less than seven^years. The Investigating Officer. rvithout tbllou rng the mandatory^{procedure prescribed} under Section 35(-l)of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,2023^(for short 'the BNSS') and u'ithout following the^guidelines formulated by the Hon'ble Suprerne Court in Arnesh Kumar l's. State of Bihart, is proceeding lurther in the matter and the same is contr-ary to law.

¶36

Per t'orira. learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that Lhere are specitic allegations levelled against the petitioner in the complain_t that, "r,ith a dishonest intention, the petitioner received an

¶37

r(lr 1,1) s sC( ttl

¶38

¶39

amount from respondent No.2 through a bank transaction by making a false promise to provide employment. However,^{the petitioner} neither provided the employment nor retumed the amount when respondent No.2 demanded to refund the amount. The said allegation prima facie attract the ingredients of the above said offences Whether the allegations made against the petitioner are true or not, the same has to be revealed during the course of investigation, especially the investigation is under progress. Since the offences 1eve1led against the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, when the Investigating Officer is trying to follow the due procedure as conte-mplated under the provisions of Section 35(3) of the BNSS, the petitioner is evading the receipt of notice and not cooperating with the investigation.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner by way of reply submitted that the petitioner will cooperate with the investigation.

¶41

Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon 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 Prpsecrrtor, the

¶42

¶43

Investigating Officer wants to follow the due procedure as contemplated under the provisions of Section 35(3) of the BNSS.

¶44

ln view of the same, the petitioner is directed to appear before the lnvestigating Officer on or before 19 09.2026 and on such appearance, the lnvestigating Officer is directed to follow the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the BNSS, and also the guidelines formulated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kunmr (strpral and the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation. It is needless to mention that the petitioner is entitled to submit repll' to rhe notice under Section 3513) o1- the BNSS by raising all the pleas which are available to him and he is also entitled to subnrit the docurnents, if any, which are in his custody, to the ln vestigatrn g Ollicer.

¶45

Accordrngly,, the^(lriminal Petition is disposed o1.

¶46

Mrscellaneous applications, pending if any. shall stand closed.

¶47

SD/- B.REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

O- //TRUE COPY/ I

To.

SECTION OFFICER

, J::"Xn::rtronar Junror Crvrt Judge _ cum _ Judiciat i Ctass Arlagistrate at

¶52

The Statron Flousr: Offrcer Kamlapur police Station Warangal District. 3 Two CCs to pubtic pro uyouruura'lou*^{'u I ruSecutor' High court for the} state of reiangana at

¶53

4 One CC to Srr N Amarnath 5 Tl^ro CD Copios Advocate tOpUCl

Vt-

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0810912026

ORDER

CRLP.No.14631 ot 2026

¶59

'i tit- .cj ;a 14
e (
t:
ooJ 1 6 St P 2t)( 5
)
J)
I i
T f-0

¶60

DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION

¶61

5: -t(d *-^

Jangam Dharmender @ Janga Dharmender v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jangam Dharmender @ Janga Dharmender v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases