[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
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
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
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
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
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
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.
(2021) 19 SCC 401
10. Accordingly, Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
25.03.2026
lk
