[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Susheel Kumar Goud @ Sandal Sushil Kumar ... vs The State Of Telangana on 6 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4474 of 2026
Date: 06.04.2026
Between:
Susheel Kumar Goud
...Petitioner/accused
AND
The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor
High Court of Telangana, at Hyderabad,and another
...Respondents
ORDER
This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings
in F.I.R.No.71 of 2026 of Tandur Town Police Station, Vikarabad
District, wherein, the petitioner was arrayed as accused for the offence
punishable under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'SC ST
POA Act').
2. Pursuant to the order dated 26.03.2026, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor intimated respondent No.2 about filing of the present
criminal petition, through the concerned SHO and also listing of the
matter on 29.03.2026 and placed a copy of such intimation notice before
this Court. In spite of the same, respondent No.2 has not chosen to enter
appearance. Hence, this Court has no option except to proceed with the
matter.
3. Heard Sri C. Raghu, learned Senior Counsel representing
Sri Srikanth Reddy Sutari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
4. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has not committed the alleged offence and has been falsely
implicated in the present case only due to the political rivalry that the
petitioner is belonging to some other political party. Even according to
the allegations made in the complaint, the ingredients of the offence
under Section 3(1)(r) of SC ST POA Act are not attracted against the
petitioner. Hence, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner
is a clear abuse of process of law. He further submitted that the offence
levelled against the petitioner is punishable with imprisonment 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 Bihar 1, is proceeding with the matter, which is contrary to law.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the
Investigating Officer will strictly follow the due procedure
(2014) 8 SCC 273
contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, as well as the
guidelines formulated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar
(supra).
6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective
parties and after perusal of the material available on record it reveals
that the offences levelled against the petitioners are punishable with
imprisonment of less than seven years. The Investigating Officer ought
to have followed 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).
7. In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to cooperate with
the Investigating Officer and 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). It is made clear that the petitioner is entitled
to submit reply/explanation along with the documents, which are
available with him, to the Investigating Officer.
8. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
06.04.2026
ggd
