Mr Balasubramanyam Kantamneni v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Sept 2026CRLP/14651/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition to quash FIR No. 87 of 2026, the High Court disposed of the petition at the admission stage. The Court did not grant quashing but directed the petitioners to appear before the Investigating Officer by a specified date, ensuring strict adherence to statutory procedure and apex court guidelines regarding arrest warrants for offences with imprisonment terms under seven years.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition disposed; Petitioners directed to appear before IO by 23.09.2026; IO directed to follow Section 35(3) BNSS and Arnesh Kumar guidelines.

Mr Balasubramanyam Kantamneni Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 14651 OF 2026

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mr Balasubramanyam Kantamneni, S/o Ramesh Katamanenr Aged about 38 years Occ Private Employee

¶9

Smt Kantamneni Uma Maheshwari, Wo Balasubramanyam Kantamneni Aged about 34 years Occ Private Employee

¶10

Both No. 1 & 2 are R/o HNo19-'1-32/A Umda Bazar Shantiniketan School Doodbowli Hyderabad

¶11

Mr Janardhan, S/ o Chinna Swamy Aged about 54 years Occ Barbour R/o HNo19-1 -32611 Doodbowli Hyderabad

¶12

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No.1 to 3

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana Through SHO Jubilee Hills Police Station Hyderabad

¶15

... RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶16

Bhimireddy Ramu Reddy, S/o B Manohar Reddy Aged about 31 years Occ Food Supply in Cine Field R/o HNo 8-3-231/81249 Sri Krishna Nagar Yousufguda Hyderabad, Cell No. 9550399963.

¶17

...RESPONDENT No. 2/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶18

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 QUASH the proceedings in FIR No 87 of 2026 on the file of PS Jubilee Hyderabad against the PetitionersiAmused No1 to 3.

¶19

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2026

¶20

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 STAY all further proceedings including arrest of the Petitioners/Accused No1 to 3 in FIR No 87 of 2026 on the file of P.S. Jubilee Hills Hyderabad pending disposal of the main Crrminal Petitron

¶21

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V S Sudhakar, Advocate for the Petitioners, Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2

¶22

The Court made the following: OROER

¶23

IN TIIE HIGH^{COIIRT FOR THE STATE OF TELAI\GANA} ATHYDERABAD

¶24

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO}

¶25

CRIMINAL^{PETITION No.L465I of2026}

¶26

CNR N^{o. HBHCOI0 61466202}

¶27

Date :09.09.2026

¶28

Between:

¶29

Balasubramanyam^{Kantamneni and others'}

¶30

...Petitioners/accused

¶31

Nos.l to 3

¶32

AND

¶33

The State ofTelangana^{and another}

¶34

...Respondents/De-facto^Complainant

¶35

ORDER

¶36

This Criminal^{Petition has been filed bythe}

¶37

petitioners/accused^{Nos.l to 3 seekingto quashthe proceedingsin} FIR No.87 of^{2026of Jubilee Hills Police Station, Hyderabad'for} the offences^{punishable under Sections 316(2),318(4)r/w 3(5) of}

¶38

the Bharatiya Nyaya^{Sanhitha,2023(forshort, "BNS")'}

¶39

Heard Mr. V.S.^{Sudhaker, leamed counsel for the petitioners}

¶40

and Mr.Jithender^{RaoVeeramalla, leamedAdditional Public}

¶41

Prosecutor for^{resPondent No.I .}

¶42

J With their consent,^{the criminal petition is disposed of at the}

¶43

stage of admission.

¶44

¶45

Leamed counsel for the petitioners submitted that^the petitioners have not committed the alleged offences^{and havebeen} talsely impticated in the present crime.^{The natureof the} allegations levelled in the complaint are^purely civil^{in nature in} respect of the monetary transactions.^{RespondentNo'2 ought to} have approached the competent Civil Court,^{on the other handfiled} the present complaint by giving it a criminal^{colourto recoverthe} amount due and payabte by^{implicatingthe petitionersfor the} offences punishable under Sections^{316(2),318(a) r/w 3(5) ofthe} BNS and thc ofl-ences cannot go together,^{in view of the principle} Iaid dou'n by the Hon'ble Apex Court^{in DelhiRace Club (1940)}

¶46

Ltd. & Ors vs. State of^{(Jttar Pradesh} & Any'. Hence,

¶47

continuation of the proceedings against the^{petitioners is a clear} abuse ol' the process of the law. He further submitted^{that the} offences lerelled against the petitioners are^{punishable with} imprisonment of less than seven years. The Investigating Officer, u.ithout follorving the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) ofthe Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023^(for short 'BNSS') and without following the guidelines formulated by

¶48

' 1:02.r1^{19 566ono}

¶49

¶50

the Hon'ble Supreme^{Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs' Stateof Bihal,} is proceeding further^{in the matterand the sameis contraryto law'}

¶51

Per contra,^{leamedAdditional PublicProsecutor for} respondent No.1^{submits that thereare specific allegations levelled} in the complaint that^{the petitioners have received the amount from} the respondent No.2,^{however,they failedto supplythe material in} pursuance to the contract entered^{by the petitioners andthe} respondent No.2. The^{petitioner has not refunded the amountwith} a dishonest intention and^{issuedthe cheques, and the samewere} dishonoured The said^{allegationsattract the offencespunishable} under Sections 316(2),^{318(4)r/w 3(5) of the BNS.The} Investigating Officer recorded^{the statementof LWl only at this} juncture and the investigation is under progress.^Whetherthe allegations leveled in the^{complaint are true or not the same has to} be revealed during the^{course of investigation especiallythe} investigation is under^{progress.The petitionersare not entitled to} seek quashment of^{the proceedings againstthem at this stage'} However, since the^{offence alleged againstthe petitionerare} punishable with imprisonment^{of less than seven years'the}

¶52

'^{(2014) 8 scc273}

¶53

¶54

Investigating Offrcer intends to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and the guidelines laid down by

¶55

the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar^(supra). However, the petitioners are avoiding receipt of notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and are not cooperating with the investigation from the date of registration of the crime i.e., 12.02.2026.

¶56

By way of reply, learned counsel for the^petitioners submitted that the petitioners will cooperate with the investigation. He further submitted that the Investigating Officer may be directed to fbllow the due procedure as contemplated under the^provisions of the BNSS

¶57

7 . 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 petitioners are punishable with imprisonment for a term of less than seven years arising out of the monetary transactions between the petitioners and the respondent No.2. Whether the allegations leveled in the complaint are true or not the same has to be revealed during the course of inrrestigation especially even according to the leamed Additicnal Public prosecutor, the investigation is under

¶58

¶59

¶60

progress.^{Even according to the leamedAdditionalPublic} Prosecutor,^{the offence alleged against the petitionersare} punishable^{with imprisonment of less than seven years and the} Investigating^{Officerwill follow the procedure contemplated under} Section^{35(3) of the BNSS and also the guidelines formulated by} the^{Apex Court in ArneshKumar(supra)'}

¶61

8.^{Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and} circumstances^{of the case, the petitionersare directed to appear} before^{the InvestigatingOfhceron or before 23'09'2026'On} such^{appearance,the InvestigatingOfficer is directed to} scrupulously^{followthe procedure contemplated underSection} 35(3)^{of the BNSS, as wellas the guidelines issued by the Apex} Court^{in ArneshKumar (supra). It is needlessto mention that} the^{petitioners are entitled to put forth their grievanceby raising} all^{the pleas which are available to them, and they are also entitled} to submit^{the documents,if any,whichare in their custody, to the} Investigating^{Officer. The petitioners shall also cooperatewith} the investigation.

¶62

9 Accordingly,^{the Criminal Petitionis disposedof'}

¶63

¶64

Misce^llaneous

¶65

applications,^{pending ifany, shall stand}

¶66

closed

¶67

SD/- AHMED ABDULLAH KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE^COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

I rhe^{XVr I Addlt oTI} ;;:eJJ :ffi "Hilffiff 'X[::Yyou,,n"o 2 The^{station Ho":-";r.or"cutor'} High court for^{the state of relanganaat} a ,*o^{CCs to-P,ublicr}

¶72

sudhakar^{AdvocateroPUCl} , :r.:.:T?j:;"":', 5 Two^{CD CoPies}

VH w'1."

HIGH COURT

DATED: 09/09/2026

ORDER

CRLP.No.14651 ot 2026

¶78

1B g 5T416:
?
11 SEP 2U26
5oo _|.

z1
OEs,,eTCd

¶79

DISPOSING OF THE

¶80

CRIMINAL PETITION

¶81

)
\4A 1
r.l
\

Mr Balasubramanyam Kantamneni v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Balasubramanyam Kantamneni 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases