Telangana High Court
Wasim Khaja Pasha vs The State Of Telangana on 25 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4351 of 2026
Date: 25.03.2026.
Between:
Wasim Khaja Pasha
...Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana,
Represented by Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Hyderabad and another
...Respondents
ORDER
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.6 seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.72 of 2026 on the file of Banswada Police Station, Kamareddy District.
2. Heard Mr.Sama Sunil Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner through video conference and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed the offences and has been falsely implicated in 2 the present case. He further submits that the petitioner was not present at the scene of the offence on 20.02.2026. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the alleged offence took place on 20.02.2026. The de facto complainant lodged the present complaint on 26.02.2026, after a lapse of more than six days, without providing any reasons for the delay. Respondent No.2 has made omnibus allegations merely by mentioning the name of the petitioner in the complaint, especially when the petitioner was not present at the scene of the offence on that day. He was not in Bansuwada Town on that day. Hence, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse of the process of law.
4. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioner has committed a very serious offence and that specific allegations have been levelled against him. It is alleged that the petitioner, along with other accused persons, attacked respondent No.2 and another person with the intention to commit murder. Whether the petitioner was present along with the other accused at the scene of the offence or not is a disputed question of fact, which will be revealed during the course of the 3 investigation. Basing on the said ground, the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings. He further submitted that respondent No.2, in his complaint, has specifically mentioned the reasons for the delay in lodging the complaint, and such delay is not a ground for seeking quashing of the proceedings at the threshold.
5. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioner in the complaint. The petitioner, along with the other accused, is alleged to have attacked the de facto complainant and his friends on 20.02.2026. Respondent No.2 has also mentioned the reasons for the delay in lodging the complaint. Whether the petitioner was present at the scene of the offence on 20.02.2026 along with the other accused or not is a disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated or decided by this Court while exercising the powers conferred under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. This Court is of the considered view that the same has to be revealed during the course 4 of investigation. Even according to the prosecution, the investigation is still in progress.
6. Insofar as the other contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, it is submitted that the alleged offence took place on 20.02.2026, whereas the de facto complainant lodged the complaint on 26.02.2026. On that basis, it is contended that continuation of proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse of the process of law. However, the de facto complainant, in his complaint, has mentioned the reasons for the delay in lodging the complaint. Therefore, this Court does not find any ground to quash the proceedings at this stage, especially as the investigation is in progress.
[ 7. It is relevant to mention that in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court delineated the limited scope of the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings, holding that such power may be exercised only in exceptional cases where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose any offence, are inherently improbable, legally barred, or manifestly 1 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 5 mala fide, while cautioning that the categories so enumerated are illustrative and the power must be exercised sparingly. The said principles were reiterated in Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2 wherein it was emphasised that the police have a statutory right and duty to investigate cognizable offences and that Courts should not interdict investigation at the threshold unless no cognizable offence is disclosed on a plain reading of the FIR; the FIR is not expected to be an encyclopaedia of all facts, and criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at their nascent stage.
8. In the present case, the allegations made in the complaint prima facie attracts the ingredients of the offences under Sections 191 (1), 191 (2), 191 (3), 196 (1) (a) and 109 r/w. 190 of BNS, and as the investigation is still in progress, the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings at the threshold.
9. For the foregoing reasons, as well as in view of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as mentioned supra, this Court does not find any ground to quash the proceedings. 2 (2021) 19 SCC 401 6
10. Accordingly, Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO 25.03.2026 lk