[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
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.
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.
(2014) 8 SCC 273
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
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
