[ 3303 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11223 OF 2026 Between: 1 Chennavally Shagala Shankaramma, Wo. Late Shagala Nagaiah, Age. 65 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 5-109/3, Santhosh Colony, Jadtherla Town and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. 2 Manemma, Wo. Venkataiah, Age. 45 years, Occ. Labourer, R/o. Bandimamidipally Village, Jacherla Mandal, Mahabubnagar Distirct. ...Petitioners AND '1 police Station Jadcherla, . The State of Telangana, through S.H.O of Mahabubnagar District Rep. by its public prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. 2. Sulthan Md, S/o. Sardar Ali, Age.60, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. 7-8211, Jadcherla Town and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. ...Respondents/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 FIR No.482 of 2026 on the file of police station, Jadcherla Town, Mahabubnagar District. l.A. NO: 1OF 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 in FIR No.482 ot 2026 on the file of police Station Jadcherla Town, Mahabubnagar District, pending disposal of the above criminal petition.

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri p. Giri Krishna, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COIJRTF'OR THE STATE OF TEI-ANGANA \T TIYDERABAT) THE HO\OT RAI]I,F, SRI JT-S-TIC[- J.SR[-TINI\ AS RAO ('RI\ll\Al. PETI'IIOr.- No.l1223 of 2026 Daft: 17.07.2026 B etw een: Chennavally Shagala Shankaramma and another Petitioners ANt) 'fhe State o1- l'elanp.ana und another. Respondents ORDF],R lhis ( rin'rinal Perition has bcen Irled sceking to quash the proceeclines in Crime \o.,181 of 2026 ol Jadcherla Town police Station. !lahabubnagar'. r.r,herein thc petitioners were arrayed as accuscrl Nos.l and 2 lor the ollences punishable under Sections 329(3). 3l'+(1). 115(2.) and 351(2) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Saniita. l0ll (for short. 'B\S'). ?. IJeard \{r.P.(liri Krishna. learned counsel lor the petitioners publicand \l r..l ith,-.nder Rao Veerarnalla. learned Additional Prosecrrtor lor respondent .r"o. L 3. With their consenr. the criminal petition is disposed ol at the stage oladmission. 4. l.earned counsel 1or the petitioners submits that lhe petitioners har,e not cornmitte-d thc alleged oflences and have been lalsclr - 2

'l'he implicated in the present case. allegations levelled against the petitioners are purely civil in nature, particularly since petitioner No.l has filed O.S. No.81 of 2026 on the file of the leamed Junior Civil Judge, Jadcherla, against respondent No.2 seeking a decree of perpetual injunction. When the said suit is pending between the parties before the competent Civil Court in respect of the very same property, respondent No.2 flled the present complaint by giving a criminal colour. I-[e furlher submits that the alleged offence have taken place on 25.06.2026 at 08:00 hours; however, respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint only on 01.07.2026, though no such incident had occurred on the alleged date. Respondent No.2 filed the present complaint as an afterthought, without assigning any reason for the delay in lodging the complaint. He further submits that the ingredients ofthe ofll'ences under Sections 329(3),324(4), 115(2) and 351(2) r/w 3(5) oi the IINS arc not attracted against the petitioners and are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. The Investigating Offlcer, without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') and without following the guidelines forrnulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh 3 Kumtrr Vs. Slute oJ Bihart. is procecding further in the matter and the same is contrarl to lau. Ieamed Additional Public Proseculor submitted5. Per contro.

that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioners that the petitioners have trespassed into the properry of respondent No.2 and removed the trees. Whether the petitioners have committed the oflence or not have to bc rcvealcd during thc course of investigation theand the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of proceedings at this stage. He furlher submitted that the Investigating Officer wants to follow the procedure contemplated rlnder Section 35(3) of the BNSS and also the guidelines formulated by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumor (supra) on the ground that the offences levelled against the petitioners are punishable with implisonment less 1o than years. l{orvever. the pctitioners are not coming lorward receive the notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS and not cooperating with the Investigating Of ficer. the 6. Having considered the rival submissions nlade by respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record. it reveals that the otTences levelled against the petitioners are punishable * ith irnprisonme nt of less than sevcn yeals. [:vcn (20 r1) 8 SCC 2r_: - 4 according to the learned Additional public prosecutor, the lnvestigating Olficer intends to lollow the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) oi the BNSS and also the guidelines formulated by the Apex Cowt in Arnesh Kumar (supra).

7. In view of the same. the petitioner is entitled to submit reply/explanation along with the documents, which are available with them, to the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer is entitled to follow the procedure contemplated under Section Section 35(3) of the BNSS and lollow the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumtr (supra). 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/- L.VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICERTo, 1 The Addition al Judicial Magistrate of First Class At Jadcherla. -iown, 2 The Station House Officer, police Station .f aacfrerfa Mahabubnagar District. 3. Two CCs to the public prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad lourl 4. One CC to Sri. p. Giri Krishna, Advocate 5. Two CD Copies tOpUCl GNKTKA 4/ HIGH COURT DATED: 1710712026 ,.1 c 'o OROER t{ t |- CRLP.No.11223 of 2O26 s + 9,H DISPOSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION l2Lt )1" ;,\,.\

[ 3303 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11223 OF 2026 Between: 1 Chennavally Shagala Shankaramma, Wo. Late Shagala Nagaiah, Age. 65 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 5-109/3, Santhosh Colony, Jadtherla Town and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. 2 Manemma, Wo. Venkataiah, Age. 45 years, Occ. Labourer, R/o. Bandimamidipally Village, Jacherla Mandal, Mahabubnagar Distirct. ...Petitioners AND '1 police Station Jadcherla, . The State of Telangana, through S.H.O of Mahabubnagar District Rep. by its public prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. 2. Sulthan Md, S/o. Sardar Ali, Age.60, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. 7-8211, Jadcherla Town and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. ...Respondents/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 FIR No.482 of 2026 on the file of police station, Jadcherla Town, Mahabubnagar District. l.A. NO: 1OF 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 in FIR No.482 ot 2026 on the file of police Station Jadcherla Town, Mahabubnagar District, pending disposal of the above criminal petition.

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri p. Giri Krishna, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COIJRTF'OR THE STATE OF TEI-ANGANA \T TIYDERABAT) THE HO\OT RAI]I,F, SRI JT-S-TIC[- J.SR[-TINI\ AS RAO ('RI\ll\Al. PETI'IIOr.- No.l1223 of 2026 Daft: 17.07.2026 B etw een: Chennavally Shagala Shankaramma and another Petitioners ANt) 'fhe State o1- l'elanp.ana und another. Respondents ORDF],R lhis ( rin'rinal Perition has bcen Irled sceking to quash the proceeclines in Crime \o.,181 of 2026 ol Jadcherla Town police Station. !lahabubnagar'. r.r,herein thc petitioners were arrayed as accuscrl Nos.l and 2 lor the ollences punishable under Sections 329(3). 3l'+(1). 115(2.) and 351(2) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Saniita. l0ll (for short. 'B\S'). ?. IJeard \{r.P.(liri Krishna. learned counsel lor the petitioners publicand \l r..l ith,-.nder Rao Veerarnalla. learned Additional Prosecrrtor lor respondent .r"o. L 3. With their consenr. the criminal petition is disposed ol at the stage oladmission. 4. l.earned counsel 1or the petitioners submits that lhe petitioners har,e not cornmitte-d thc alleged oflences and have been lalsclr - 2

'l'he implicated in the present case. allegations levelled against the petitioners are purely civil in nature, particularly since petitioner No.l has filed O.S. No.81 of 2026 on the file of the leamed Junior Civil Judge, Jadcherla, against respondent No.2 seeking a decree of perpetual injunction. When the said suit is pending between the parties before the competent Civil Court in respect of the very same property, respondent No.2 flled the present complaint by giving a criminal colour. I-[e furlher submits that the alleged offence have taken place on 25.06.2026 at 08:00 hours; however, respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint only on 01.07.2026, though no such incident had occurred on the alleged date. Respondent No.2 filed the present complaint as an afterthought, without assigning any reason for the delay in lodging the complaint. He further submits that the ingredients ofthe ofll'ences under Sections 329(3),324(4), 115(2) and 351(2) r/w 3(5) oi the IINS arc not attracted against the petitioners and are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. The Investigating Offlcer, without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') and without following the guidelines forrnulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh 3 Kumtrr Vs. Slute oJ Bihart. is procecding further in the matter and the same is contrarl to lau. Ieamed Additional Public Proseculor submitted5. Per contro.

that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioners that the petitioners have trespassed into the properry of respondent No.2 and removed the trees. Whether the petitioners have committed the oflence or not have to bc rcvealcd during thc course of investigation theand the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of proceedings at this stage. He furlher submitted that the Investigating Officer wants to follow the procedure contemplated rlnder Section 35(3) of the BNSS and also the guidelines formulated by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumor (supra) on the ground that the offences levelled against the petitioners are punishable with implisonment less 1o than years. l{orvever. the pctitioners are not coming lorward receive the notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS and not cooperating with the Investigating Of ficer. the 6. Having considered the rival submissions nlade by respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record. it reveals that the otTences levelled against the petitioners are punishable * ith irnprisonme nt of less than sevcn yeals. [:vcn (20 r1) 8 SCC 2r_: - 4 according to the learned Additional public prosecutor, the lnvestigating Olficer intends to lollow the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) oi the BNSS and also the guidelines formulated by the Apex Cowt in Arnesh Kumar (supra).

7. In view of the same. the petitioner is entitled to submit reply/explanation along with the documents, which are available with them, to the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer is entitled to follow the procedure contemplated under Section Section 35(3) of the BNSS and lollow the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumtr (supra). 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/- L.VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICERTo, 1 The Addition al Judicial Magistrate of First Class At Jadcherla. -iown, 2 The Station House Officer, police Station .f aacfrerfa Mahabubnagar District. 3. Two CCs to the public prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad lourl 4. One CC to Sri. p. Giri Krishna, Advocate 5. Two CD Copies tOpUCl GNKTKA 4/ HIGH COURT DATED: 1710712026 ,.1 c 'o OROER t{ t |- CRLP.No.11223 of 2O26 s + 9,H DISPOSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION l2Lt )1" ;,\,.\