Disposed

Mahesh Silveri v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Sept 2026CRLP/14879/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners sought quashing of an FIR for cheating under BNS Sections 318(4) read with 3(5), arguing the dispute was civil and a recovery suit was pending. The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed, stating specific allegations of dishonest inducement existed and investigation was ongoing. The court noted the offences carry less than seven years imprisonment and directed the petitioners to appear before the Investigating Officer by 27.09.2026 and cooperate, while the IO must follow Section 35(3) BNSS and Arnesh Kumar guidelines. The petition was disposed of at the admission stage.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to appear before Investigating Officer on or before 27.09.2026, submit reply/explanation and documents, and cooperate with investigation; IO to follow Section 35(3) BNSS and Arnesh Kumar guidelines.

Mahesh Silveri Vs The State of Telangana — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 14879 OF 2026

¶7

CNR No.HBHCO1 0624552026

¶8

Between:

¶9

Mahesh Silveri, S/o Bhaskar Aged about 36 years, Occ-- Pvt Employee R/o H.No.2-2-5712, Boigally Siddipet Town and District.

¶10

Vamshr Thalakokkula, S/o Venkatesham Aged about 30 years, Occ- Driver R/o H.No.^'13-119, Gandhi Nagar Prashanth Nagar, Siddipet Town and District

¶11

...Petitioners/Accused No.1 and 2

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana, rep by its Public Prosecutor Through Siddipet I Town Police Station, Siddipet District High Court of Judicature of Telangana at Hyderabad

¶14

Shankar Bonagiri, Sio Mondaiah Aged about 37 years, Occ- Private Employee R/o Akkannapet Village and Mandal Siddipet District.

¶15

...RespondenUGomplainant

¶16

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 FIR No.406 of 2026 dated 28.08.2026 on the file of the Siddipet-l Town Police Station, Siddipet District, for the offences under Section 318(4)^{read with} Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, against the^{petitionersiAccused} Nos. l and 2 in the interests of^justice.

¶17

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2026

¶18

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS^praying that^{in the circumstances statedin} the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal^{Petition,the High Court may be pleasedto} stay all further^proceedings including arrest and appearance of^{the petitioners/} Accused No.1 and 2 in^pursuant to FIR^{No.406 oI 2026 dated 28.08.2026 on the file} of the Siddipet-l Town Police Station,^{Siddipet District,for the offences under Section}

¶19

3'18(4) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition in the interest of justice.

¶20

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

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

¶24

CRIMINAL PETITION No.14879 of 2026

¶25

CNR No.HBHC010624552026

¶26

Date:11.09.2026

¶27

Between:

¶28

Mahesh Silveri and another

¶29

...Petitioners

¶30

AND

¶31

The State of Telangana, and another

¶32

...Respondents

¶33

Order

¶34

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused

¶35

Nos.l and 2, seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.406 of 2026 of Siddipet I Town Police Station, Siddipet District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318 (a) r/w. 3 (5) ofBharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 (for short 'the BNS').

¶36

¶37

Ileard Mr.Mohd.Asifuddin, learned counsel for the petitioners, and^{Mr.JithenderRao Veeramalla,learnedArlditionalPublic} Prosecutor,^{appearing for respondent No.1}

¶38

With the consent of both the learned counsel, the criminal petition^{is disposedof at the stageof admission.}

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not^{commitledany offence and have been falsely implicatedin the} present case. He submitted that the allegations levelled in the complaint are^{purely civil in nature and relate} to the^{monelary transactions} betwecn^{the petitioners and respondentNo.2. Respondent No.2} had alreadv^{approachcd the leamed Principal Junior} Civil^Judge at^Siddipet and^{filed a suit for recoverv of the amounton the very} same allegations made in the^{conrplaint\Vhile} the^said suit is^penrling before the competent^{Civil('our1. respondentNo.2 has} filed the plesent compiaint by giving a criminal colour. Hence, continuation of rhe proceedings against the^petitioners is a clear abuse of the process of law. He further submitred that the off'cnces alleged against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. The In'"'estigating⁽ )ftie er. rvithout following the mandatory procedure

¶40

¶41

prescribed under Section 35(3) of the 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.

¶42

Per contra, the leamed Additional Public^prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations in the compiaint that the petitioners, with a dishonest intention, made a false promise to respondent No.2 that they would provide emplognent and collected a huge amount of Rs.2,90,0001. Mere pendency of a civil suit is not a bar to prosecuting a person for a penal offence. The said allegations attract the ingredients ofthe offences punishable under Sections 318(a) read with 3(5) ofthe BNS. Whether the allegations levelled in the complaint are true or not can be revealed only during the course of the investigation, especially when the investigation is still in progress. At this stage, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings. He further submits that the Investigating Officer intends to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra) on the

¶43

\2014)^{8 scc 273} /'

¶44

¶45

ground that the alleged of'fences levelled against the petitioners are punishable ri'ith imprisonment of less than seven years. However, the petitioners have not been cooperating with the investigation.

¶46

By wav ot- reply, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the pe titioners u ill coopcrate with the Investigating Of hcer.

¶47

7 . Ilaving considered the rival submissions made by the respective partics and alter perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that tl're offences levelled against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. Even according to the learned Additronal Public Prosecutor, the Investigating Offlcer will follow the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) ofthe BNSS and also the guidelines formulated by the Apex Cowt in Arnesh Kumar (stpra)

¶48

In vieu of the abore, the petitioners are directed ro appear before the lnvestigating Officer on or before 27.09.2026 and submit reply/explanation along rvith the documents, rvhich are available with them, to the Investigating Officer. The Investigating O1'ficer is entitled to follovr the plocedure contemplated under Section 35(l) of the BNSS and tbllow the guidelrncs issued by the Apex Court itr ,4rnesh Kumar (su pra)

¶49

¶50