Telangana High Court
B. Sridhar @ Balla Sridhar vs The State Of Telangana on 1 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4500 of 2026
Date: 01.04.2026
Between:
B.Sridhar @ Balla Sridhar
...Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana,
Rep. by the Public Prosecutor,
High Court at Hyderabad and another
...Respondents
ORDER
This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.954 of 2025 of Jeedimetla Police Station, Cyberabad, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as accused, for the offences punishable under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS').
2. Heard Mr.M.Kondala Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent No.1 - State. 2
3. With the consent of both the learned counsel, the criminal petition is disposed of at the admission stage.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated in the present crime. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the ingredients of Section 85 of the BNS are not attracted against the petitioner and it is punishable with imprisonment for a term of less than seven years. The Investigating Officer, without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "BNSS"), as well as the guidelines formulated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar1, is proceeding with the matter, which is contrary to law.
5. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, basing upon the written instructions furnished by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Jeedimetla Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, submitted that when the Investigating Officer tried to serve notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, the petitioner has not chosen to receive the notice and has not cooperated with the investigation. 1 (2014) 8 SCC 273 3
6. By way of reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will receive notice from the Investigating Officer, cooperate with the investigation, and submit his reply/explanation along with relevant documents. He further submitted that the Investigating Officer may be directed to follow the due procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the BNSS.
7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the offence levelled against the petitioner is punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. Even according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the Investigating Officer intends to follow the procedure prescribed under the provisions of the BNSS.
8. Taking into consideration the above said submissions, the petitioner/accused is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer, on or before 18.04.2026, and on such appearance, the Investigating Officer is entitled to issue notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and follow the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar supra. The petitioner is entitled to submit reply/explanation along with the documents, which are available with him to the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer is 4 entitled to strictly follow the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, as well as the guidelines formulated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra).
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO 01.04.2026 Note: Issue CC in a week b/o vsl