[ 3303 ] IN THE HIGH GOURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9549 OF 2026 Between: Pudari Satyanarayana Goud,, S/o. Venkanna, Aged 50 years, occ: Business, Rl/o. H.No. 3-17, C-Block, Nagepalli, V/o. Ramagiri Mandal. ...Petitioner/Accused No. 1/ AND 1. The State of Telangana, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature 2. T. Srinivas, S/o. not known, aged not known, Occ: Sub-lnspector of Police, PS, Ramagiri, Ramagundam District ...Respondents/ De-facto Complainant Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Quash the proceedings in Crime No.90/2026 for the alleged offences U/Sec. 189 (3), 132, 296(b) r/w.190 BNS on the flle of P.S. Ramagiri against the petitioner/accused No. 1. l.A. NO: 2OF 2026 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including arrest of the Petitioner/Accused No.1 in connection to Crime No.90/2026 for the alleged offences U/Sec. 189 (3), 132, 296(b) EE-'--r-+7 r/w.190 BNS on the file of P.S. Ramagiri, Ramagundam District, pending disposal of the main petition for quashing the same.

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Dr Kadiri Krishna, Counsel representing Sri B Sunitha, Advocate for the Petitiorer and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and 2. The Court made the following: ORDER pra- IN TIIE HIGH COURT ['OR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAI) THE HONOTIRABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.9549 of 2026 Date:29.06.2 26 Between: Pudari Satyanarayana Goud Petitioner/accused No. 1 AND The State ofTelangana and another ...Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in F.l.R.No.9O of 2026 of Ramagiri Police Station, Ramagundam Commissionerate, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.l, for the offences punishable under Sections 189(3), 132, and 296(b) read with 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'the BNS',). 2. Heard Dr. Kadiri Krishna, leamed counsel representing Ms. B. Sunitha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent Nos.1 and2. 2 - 3. With their consent, the criminal petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed the alleged offences and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Even according to the allegations levelled in the complaint, the ingredients of the offence under Sections 189(3), 132, and 296(b) read with 190 of the BNS are not attracted against the petitioner The petitioner has not obstructed the official duty ol'respondent No.2 or any other officials. One person by name Mandala Ramesh @ Ravi and the petitioner herein were arrayed as accused Nos.l and 2, respectively in crime No.66 of 2Q26 of Mutharam Police Station and they were produced before the Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Manthani on 09.06.2026 in respect of above said crime and the remand was not accepted by the leamed trial Court through docket order dated 09.06.2026, on the ground that the police have not followed the due procedure and not furnished the grounds of arrest in writing, before producing the above said accused Nos. I and 2. He furlher submits that respondent No.2 f,rled the present complaint by making omnibus allegations due to political rivalry. Hence, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse of the process oi law. He further --4' 3

submitted that the offences levelled against the petitioner are 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') and Supreme without following the guidelines formulated by the Hon'ble Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihart, is proceeding further in the matter and the same is contrary to law. leamed Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that 5. Per contra, there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner and other accused that they have obstructed the official duties of respondent No.2 and other police officials when they have arrested the petitioner and accused No.1 in connection with crime No.66 of 2026. The said allegations attract the ingredients of the above said offences. He further submitted that on aggrieved by the docket order passed by the learned trial Court 09.06.2026, respondent No.1 filed a revision before the Revisional Court, and the same is pending. At his stage, the petitioner is not entitled to seek However, the quashment of the proceedings in crime No.90 of 2026. offences levelled against the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, the Investigating Officer had already issued notice '(zo t+) a scc zl: f,- 4

under Section 35(3) BNSS to accused Nos.2 to 6, 8 and 9. When the Investigating Ofhcer is trying to follow the same procedure as contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and also the guidelines formulated by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra) in respect of petitioner/accused No.1, he is avoiding to receive the notice and not cooperating with the investigation 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner by way of reply submitted that the petitioner/accused No.1 will cooperate with the investigation. 7 . Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that that the offences levelled against the petitioner arc punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. Even according to the leamed Additional Public Prosecutor, the lnvestigating Officer had already issued notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS to accused Nos.2 to 6, 8 and 9 8. In view of the same, the petitioner/accused No.l is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer, Ramagiri Police Station, Ramagundam Commissionerate, in connection with crirne No.90 of 2026 on or before 10.07.2026 and on such appearance, the Investigating Officer is directed to follow the procedure contemplated under the provisions of tt-az 5

the BNSS, and also the guidelines formulated by the Hon,ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra) and the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation. It is needless to mention that the petitioner is entitled to submit reply to the notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS by raising all the pleas which are available to him and he is also entitled to submit the documents, if any, which are in his custody, to the Investigating officer. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is disposed of Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/- P.C. SULEKHA DEVI ASSISTANT REGIST //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Station House Officer, Ramagiri Police Station, Ramagundam District 2 Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] 3 One CC to Sri B Sunitha, Advocate [OPUC] 4 Two CD Copies Sa%, HIGH COURT DATED: 2910612026 l i o F TE L4 ^/i t' )t" ORDER (-- o s CRLP.No.9549 of 2026 H ?t DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION 6 2

[ 3303 ] IN THE HIGH GOURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9549 OF 2026 Between: Pudari Satyanarayana Goud,, S/o. Venkanna, Aged 50 years, occ: Business, Rl/o. H.No. 3-17, C-Block, Nagepalli, V/o. Ramagiri Mandal. ...Petitioner/Accused No. 1/ AND 1. The State of Telangana, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature 2. T. Srinivas, S/o. not known, aged not known, Occ: Sub-lnspector of Police, PS, Ramagiri, Ramagundam District ...Respondents/ De-facto Complainant Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Quash the proceedings in Crime No.90/2026 for the alleged offences U/Sec. 189 (3), 132, 296(b) r/w.190 BNS on the flle of P.S. Ramagiri against the petitioner/accused No. 1. l.A. NO: 2OF 2026 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including arrest of the Petitioner/Accused No.1 in connection to Crime No.90/2026 for the alleged offences U/Sec. 189 (3), 132, 296(b) EE-'--r-+7 r/w.190 BNS on the file of P.S. Ramagiri, Ramagundam District, pending disposal of the main petition for quashing the same.

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Dr Kadiri Krishna, Counsel representing Sri B Sunitha, Advocate for the Petitiorer and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and 2. The Court made the following: ORDER pra- IN TIIE HIGH COURT ['OR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAI) THE HONOTIRABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.9549 of 2026 Date:29.06.2 26 Between: Pudari Satyanarayana Goud Petitioner/accused No. 1 AND The State ofTelangana and another ...Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in F.l.R.No.9O of 2026 of Ramagiri Police Station, Ramagundam Commissionerate, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.l, for the offences punishable under Sections 189(3), 132, and 296(b) read with 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'the BNS',). 2. Heard Dr. Kadiri Krishna, leamed counsel representing Ms. B. Sunitha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent Nos.1 and2. 2 - 3. With their consent, the criminal petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed the alleged offences and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Even according to the allegations levelled in the complaint, the ingredients of the offence under Sections 189(3), 132, and 296(b) read with 190 of the BNS are not attracted against the petitioner The petitioner has not obstructed the official duty ol'respondent No.2 or any other officials. One person by name Mandala Ramesh @ Ravi and the petitioner herein were arrayed as accused Nos.l and 2, respectively in crime No.66 of 2Q26 of Mutharam Police Station and they were produced before the Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Manthani on 09.06.2026 in respect of above said crime and the remand was not accepted by the leamed trial Court through docket order dated 09.06.2026, on the ground that the police have not followed the due procedure and not furnished the grounds of arrest in writing, before producing the above said accused Nos. I and 2. He furlher submits that respondent No.2 f,rled the present complaint by making omnibus allegations due to political rivalry. Hence, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse of the process oi law. He further --4' 3

submitted that the offences levelled against the petitioner are 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') and Supreme without following the guidelines formulated by the Hon'ble Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihart, is proceeding further in the matter and the same is contrary to law. leamed Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that 5. Per contra, there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner and other accused that they have obstructed the official duties of respondent No.2 and other police officials when they have arrested the petitioner and accused No.1 in connection with crime No.66 of 2026. The said allegations attract the ingredients of the above said offences. He further submitted that on aggrieved by the docket order passed by the learned trial Court 09.06.2026, respondent No.1 filed a revision before the Revisional Court, and the same is pending. At his stage, the petitioner is not entitled to seek However, the quashment of the proceedings in crime No.90 of 2026. offences levelled against the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, the Investigating Officer had already issued notice '(zo t+) a scc zl: f,- 4

under Section 35(3) BNSS to accused Nos.2 to 6, 8 and 9. When the Investigating Ofhcer is trying to follow the same procedure as contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and also the guidelines formulated by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra) in respect of petitioner/accused No.1, he is avoiding to receive the notice and not cooperating with the investigation 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner by way of reply submitted that the petitioner/accused No.1 will cooperate with the investigation. 7 . Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that that the offences levelled against the petitioner arc punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. Even according to the leamed Additional Public Prosecutor, the lnvestigating Officer had already issued notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS to accused Nos.2 to 6, 8 and 9 8. In view of the same, the petitioner/accused No.l is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer, Ramagiri Police Station, Ramagundam Commissionerate, in connection with crirne No.90 of 2026 on or before 10.07.2026 and on such appearance, the Investigating Officer is directed to follow the procedure contemplated under the provisions of tt-az 5

the BNSS, and also the guidelines formulated by the Hon,ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra) and the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation. It is needless to mention that the petitioner is entitled to submit reply to the notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS by raising all the pleas which are available to him and he is also entitled to submit the documents, if any, which are in his custody, to the Investigating officer. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is disposed of Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/- P.C. SULEKHA DEVI ASSISTANT REGIST //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Station House Officer, Ramagiri Police Station, Ramagundam District 2 Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] 3 One CC to Sri B Sunitha, Advocate [OPUC] 4 Two CD Copies Sa%, HIGH COURT DATED: 2910612026 l i o F TE L4 ^/i t' )t" ORDER (-- o s CRLP.No.9549 of 2026 H ?t DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION 6 2