[ 3303 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, IHE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1'1709 OF 2026 Between: 1. Sangepogu Arun Kumar, S/o. Mosha, H.No.15-85, SC Colony,Occ.Political leader Congress Party Mandal President, age 40years, Amarchintha., Atmakur Mandal, Wanaparthy District - 509130. 2. Sangyapaga Shyam Kumar, S/o. Balanna, H.No.8-B/3, SC Colony, occr Amarchintha., Congress Party, Occ. Political Leader, age.4Oyears Atmakur Mandal, Wanaparthy District - 509130. ...Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 AND '1 . The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. 2. Pathangi Raghavendar Goud, s/o Balaiah, Age. 38 years, Occ. Business,Rl./o Marikal Village and Mandal, Naravanpet District, Telangana. ...Respondents

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 FIR in Crime No.75 of 2026 dated 1610712026 on the file of Amarachintha Police Station, Wanaparthy District, registered against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 308(2), 329(4), 351(2), 352 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya. Sanhita, 2023, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and consequently quash all further proceedings arising there from. l.A. NO: 2 OF 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 investigation, pursuant to the FIR in Crime. No.75 of 2026 dated 16.07.2026, on the file of Amarachintha Police Station, District register-.dJor the offences punishable under. Sectrons 30g(2),Yqlapadhy 329(4), 351(2) 352 read wirh section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya sanhita, 20)3, pending disposal of the above Criminal petition.

o-r fr>r hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds - This Petition coming pally Vinod Kumarof criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla. Additionat Public Prosecutor on berhalf of Respondent No.1 and none appeared for theRespondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FORTHE STATE OFTELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.l1 709 of2026 Date:23.07.2026 Between: Sangepogu Arun Kumar and another ..Petitioners AND The State ofTelangana, and another. ...Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.75 of 2026 of Amarachintha Police Station, Wanaparthy District, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as the accused Nos.l and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 308 (2), 329 (4),351 (2) and 352 r/w. 3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,, 2023 (tor short'BNS'). 2. Heard Mr.Pally Vinod Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. L 3. With the consent of both the leamed counsel, the criminal petition is ciisposed of at the admission stage '2

4. Leamed courLsel fbr the petitioners submjtted that the petitioners have not committed the alleged offences'and have been falsely implicated irr the present crime. He further submitted that the allegations made in the complaint are purely civil in nature. The respondent No..l ought to have approached the competent civil Court; on thc othr:r hand, he filed the present complaint by giving it a criminal colour 4.1 . i{e lurther strbmitted that the offences levelted against the petitioners are punrshable with imprisonment of less than seven 'fhe years. lnl es..igating Offlcer, without following the mandatory procedure prescribe.d under Section 35(3) ofthe Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. .1023 (fbr shoft 'BNSS') and without following thc gurdelines fbrmulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Oouri \n Arnesh Kumar Vs. State o-f Bihart, is proceeding furlher in the matter and the same i\ conllar, trr Iau. 5. Per contru the learned Additional pultlic prosecutor subrnittcd thar thcre are specific allegations levelled against the 'thepe titioners in thc c lntplaint. said allegations prima facie attract thc ingredrents of rhe ot'tenccs Lrnder Sections 30g r2), 32g (4),351 'i:r l+) s scc :r_, a

(2) and 352 rlw.3 (5) of BNS. Whether the allegations levelled in the complaint are true or not can be revealed oniy during the course of the investigation, especially when the investigation is still in progress. At this stage, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings. He further submits that the Investigating Officer intends to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra) on the ground that the alleged offences levelled against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. However, the petitioners have not been cooperating with the investigation. 6. By way of reply, Iearned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners will cooperate with the Investigating Officer. 7. 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. Even according to the leamed Additional Public Prosecutor, the lnvestigating Officer want to follow the procedure contemplated +

guidelines under Section 3:(3) of the BNSS and also the formulated by the Apex Court tn Arnesh Kumar (supra) view oftre above, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 are 8. ln directed to appear trefore the Investigating Officer on or before the 05.08.2026 and submit reply/explanation along with Investigating documents, which tLre available with them, to the entitled Io follow the Ofhcer. The lnvt:stigating Officer is and procedure contenrplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS foliow the guidetines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra). .he Criminal Petition is disposed of. 9. Accordingly, stand Miscellane,tur; applicatrons, pending if any, shali closed. SD/. P.C.SULEKHA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Cr //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, '1 First Class Magistrate-Rmaractrlntf'aat Atmakur . The Judicial Police Station' Wanaparthy District 2. The Station Uo's'" ':tfic"'' CC to SRI PA-LY VINOD KUMAR REDDY' Advocate [OPUC] 3. One 4.TwoCCstoPUIlLlCPROSECUTORHighCourtfortheStateofTelangana' at HYderabad [OUT] 5. Two CD CoPies ADK,GNK Y+ HIGH COURT DATED: 23t0T12026 ORDER v 9F rE1{ CRLP.No.11t09 of 2026 + ,$ / Dt a qct! q q.\ +s t{ &otH r DISPOSING OF: THE CRLP (B .oP*[ \Lp- i.r+''

[ 3303 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, IHE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1'1709 OF 2026 Between: 1. Sangepogu Arun Kumar, S/o. Mosha, H.No.15-85, SC Colony,Occ.Political leader Congress Party Mandal President, age 40years, Amarchintha., Atmakur Mandal, Wanaparthy District - 509130. 2. Sangyapaga Shyam Kumar, S/o. Balanna, H.No.8-B/3, SC Colony, occr Amarchintha., Congress Party, Occ. Political Leader, age.4Oyears Atmakur Mandal, Wanaparthy District - 509130. ...Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 AND '1 . The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. 2. Pathangi Raghavendar Goud, s/o Balaiah, Age. 38 years, Occ. Business,Rl./o Marikal Village and Mandal, Naravanpet District, Telangana. ...Respondents

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 FIR in Crime No.75 of 2026 dated 1610712026 on the file of Amarachintha Police Station, Wanaparthy District, registered against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 308(2), 329(4), 351(2), 352 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya. Sanhita, 2023, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and consequently quash all further proceedings arising there from. l.A. NO: 2 OF 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 investigation, pursuant to the FIR in Crime. No.75 of 2026 dated 16.07.2026, on the file of Amarachintha Police Station, District register-.dJor the offences punishable under. Sectrons 30g(2),Yqlapadhy 329(4), 351(2) 352 read wirh section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya sanhita, 20)3, pending disposal of the above Criminal petition.

o-r fr>r hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds - This Petition coming pally Vinod Kumarof criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla. Additionat Public Prosecutor on berhalf of Respondent No.1 and none appeared for theRespondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FORTHE STATE OFTELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.l1 709 of2026 Date:23.07.2026 Between: Sangepogu Arun Kumar and another ..Petitioners AND The State ofTelangana, and another. ...Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.75 of 2026 of Amarachintha Police Station, Wanaparthy District, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as the accused Nos.l and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 308 (2), 329 (4),351 (2) and 352 r/w. 3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,, 2023 (tor short'BNS'). 2. Heard Mr.Pally Vinod Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. L 3. With the consent of both the leamed counsel, the criminal petition is ciisposed of at the admission stage '2

4. Leamed courLsel fbr the petitioners submjtted that the petitioners have not committed the alleged offences'and have been falsely implicated irr the present crime. He further submitted that the allegations made in the complaint are purely civil in nature. The respondent No..l ought to have approached the competent civil Court; on thc othr:r hand, he filed the present complaint by giving it a criminal colour 4.1 . i{e lurther strbmitted that the offences levelted against the petitioners are punrshable with imprisonment of less than seven 'fhe years. lnl es..igating Offlcer, without following the mandatory procedure prescribe.d under Section 35(3) ofthe Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. .1023 (fbr shoft 'BNSS') and without following thc gurdelines fbrmulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Oouri \n Arnesh Kumar Vs. State o-f Bihart, is proceeding furlher in the matter and the same i\ conllar, trr Iau. 5. Per contru the learned Additional pultlic prosecutor subrnittcd thar thcre are specific allegations levelled against the 'thepe titioners in thc c lntplaint. said allegations prima facie attract thc ingredrents of rhe ot'tenccs Lrnder Sections 30g r2), 32g (4),351 'i:r l+) s scc :r_, a

(2) and 352 rlw.3 (5) of BNS. Whether the allegations levelled in the complaint are true or not can be revealed oniy during the course of the investigation, especially when the investigation is still in progress. At this stage, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings. He further submits that the Investigating Officer intends to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra) on the ground that the alleged offences levelled against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. However, the petitioners have not been cooperating with the investigation. 6. By way of reply, Iearned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners will cooperate with the Investigating Officer. 7. 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. Even according to the leamed Additional Public Prosecutor, the lnvestigating Officer want to follow the procedure contemplated +

guidelines under Section 3:(3) of the BNSS and also the formulated by the Apex Court tn Arnesh Kumar (supra) view oftre above, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 are 8. ln directed to appear trefore the Investigating Officer on or before the 05.08.2026 and submit reply/explanation along with Investigating documents, which tLre available with them, to the entitled Io follow the Ofhcer. The lnvt:stigating Officer is and procedure contenrplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS foliow the guidetines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra). .he Criminal Petition is disposed of. 9. Accordingly, stand Miscellane,tur; applicatrons, pending if any, shali closed. SD/. P.C.SULEKHA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Cr //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, '1 First Class Magistrate-Rmaractrlntf'aat Atmakur . The Judicial Police Station' Wanaparthy District 2. The Station Uo's'" ':tfic"'' CC to SRI PA-LY VINOD KUMAR REDDY' Advocate [OPUC] 3. One 4.TwoCCstoPUIlLlCPROSECUTORHighCourtfortheStateofTelangana' at HYderabad [OUT] 5. Two CD CoPies ADK,GNK Y+ HIGH COURT DATED: 23t0T12026 ORDER v 9F rE1{ CRLP.No.11t09 of 2026 + ,$ / Dt a qct! q q.\ +s t{ &otH r DISPOSING OF: THE CRLP (B .oP*[ \Lp- i.r+''