[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Chigumalla Mallikarjun vs The State Of Telangana on 2 April, 2026
Author: N.Tukaramji
Bench: N.Tukaramji
1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
WRIT PETITION No.9963 OF 2026
DATE : 02.04.2026
Between:
Chigumalla Mallikarjun
...Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana & 2 Others
...Respondents
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of
India seeking the following relief:
"...to Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction, declaring the action of the respondent no 3
(Investigation officer in crime No 140/2026)in not receiving the
written reply to Section 35(3) including the annexed documents,
with due acknowledgment, as arbitrary, unconstitutional and is in
violation of Right to Fair Investigation of the accused-petitioner
and consequently direct the respondent no 3(Investigating officer)
to receive the written reply of the petitioner along with the
annexed documents and to consider the written reply in the
course of investigation and to pass...."
2. Heard Mr. Peri Bala Sai Vishnu Vardhan, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr.D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for
Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as respondent
No. 3 failed to receive the written reply submitted by the petitioner in
response to the notice issued under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), along with the annexed
documents, the present petition has been filed seeking appropriate
directions. It is further submitted that the petitioner was called to the
police station on 18.03.2026 in connection with the investigation, and
on that occasion, when he attempted to submit his written
explanation, the Investigating Officer refused to receive the same. A
subsequent attempt was made on 22.03.2026 through the petitioner's
counsel; however, that effort also proved unsuccessful. Thereafter, on
26.03.2026, the reply was sent through registered post. In these
circumstances, it is prayed that appropriate directions be issued to
respondent No. 3 to duly receive and consider the petitioner's
explanation in accordance with law.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on
instructions, submits that the respondent-Investigating Officer has, in
fact, received the petitioner's explanation under Section 35(3) of BNSS
through post dated 26.03.2026, and that the material submitted
therewith is presently under consideration. It is therefore contended
that the grievance of the petitioner no longer subsists, and the petition
is liable to be dismissed.
5. I have perused the material placed on record.
6. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent
Investigating Officer failed to receive his explanation submitted
pursuant to the notice issued under Section 35(3) of BNSS. Section
35(3) of BNSS contemplates procedural safeguards in respect of police
action, and implicitly requires that any explanation or material
submitted by a person in response to such notice be duly received and
considered as part of a fair and transparent investigative process.
However, the submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader
indicates that the petitioner's reply, sent through post on 26.03.2026,
has been received and is under active consideration by the
Investigating Officer.
7. In view of the above development, it is evident that the grievance
of the petitioner stands effectively redressed. Accordingly, as the relief
sought has already been substantially complied with during the
pendency of proceedings, no further adjudication is warranted in the
present petition.
8. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. There
shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
___________________
N.TUKARAMJI, J
Date: 02-04-2026
mmr
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
WRIT PETITION No.9963 OF 2026
Dated: 02.04.2026
mmr
