[ 3303 j IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO:11923 OF 2026 Between: lVl. Govindappa, aged about 59 1. tVamidipalli Anjanayya @ Ir/. Anjaneyulu, S/o. years, R/o. H.No.2-53, Occ.Agriculture OC Colony, B. Ramasagaram village, Beluguppa [\Iandal, Anantapuramu District Andhra Pradesh. M. Lalrtha, Wo lVlamidrpalli Anlanayya @ 2. Mamidipalli Lalilamma @ M. Anjaneyulu, aged about 50 years, R/o. H.No. 2-53, Occ.HouseWife OC Colony, B. Ramasagaram village. Beluguppa ltrlandal, Anantapuramu District. Andhra Pradesh. ..PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No.2 & 3 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Station House Officer, Shamirpet P.S It/alkajgiri District, Through its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the state of Telangana., Hyderabad. 2. Victim Women, Kukatpally,Medchal-Malka;giri ...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated tn the [Vemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in Cr No. 207 of 2026 on the file of Shamirpet Poltce Station, tValkalgiri District l.A. NO: 2 OF 2026

Petition under Sectron 528 of BNSS praying that in the crrcumstances stated In the l,4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in Cr No 207 of 2026 on the file of Shamirpet Poltce Station, lVlalkajgiri District pending drsposal of the above Crtmtnal Petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of I\/r. B. Nageshwar Rao representrng Sri E ANJANA REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Gourt made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STA'TE OF TELANGANA .,{T HYDERABAI) TH E HO\O T]RABI,E SRI JUS'TICE,I.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMI\AI, PETIT ION No.l1923 of 2026 Date: 04.08.2026 Betri,een Mamidipall i A njanayya @; M.An3aneyulu and another ...Petitioners r\ND The State o f' l-clangana, and another Respondents ORDER

'['his C riminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime \o.207 ol 2026 of Shamirpet police Station, Malkalgiri l)istrict, ri.herein the petitioners were arrayed as the accused Nos.2 ;ncl 3 fbr the oftcnces punishable under Sections 69 and 352 r/q. 3 (5)of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 (fbr short 'BNS') and Sections 3 (2) (V) (a) olThc Scheclulcd Castes and The Schedulcd Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 20 I5 (for shorlPOA .A,ct ). 2. Leantecl Addif ional public prosecutor subrnitted that, pursuant to rhe orclcr datcd 28.07.2026, the Investigating Officer served noticc on lhc de facto complainant about filing of the presenl Crinrrnal petition. Despite service of notice. respondent 2 No. 2 has not chosen to enter her appearance. Hence, this Court has no option except to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. learned counsel representing3. Heard Mr.B.Nageshwar Rao, Ms.E.Anjana Reddy, leamed counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. I learned counsel, the criminal4. With the consent of both the petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

petitioners submitted that the5. Learned counsel for the petitioners have not committed the alleged offences and have been falsely implicated in the present case only on the ground that they are the parents of accused No.l. The entire allegations are levelled respondentagainst accused No. l. The petitioners never abused No.2 in the name of her caste. Despite the same, respondent No.2 implicated the petitioners by making omnibus allegations against them. levelled against the5.1. He further submitted that the offences petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. The Investigating Officer, without following the mandatory l ir Nagarikprocedure prcscribe(i under Section i5l3)olthe Bharatif Suraksha Sanhita. I'rll (li)r short'll\SS')and without iirllow'ing (.ourt in Arneshthe gLridetines lbrnrL iatcd hr rhe tlon'ble Suprente Kumar Vs. Srule ol Bihtrt . is procceding further in the nlatter ancl the sanle is colltral-\ 1o la\\

Prosecutor6. Pet' t't.trtti.tt. thr' lcltrncd \dditional Public subrnitted that thcrt: rtt-e spr-.citlc rllc'gations levelled against thc pe t lt rorlc rs IN tht' co rplainr \\ hcthcr thc allcgations levelled in thc o1' cornplaint arc trlle or n()l can be rer caled only' during the course in the inr. estisation. cspcciallr *hen the investigation is still seek progress. At this stage Lhc pctitionels are not cntitle(l to lurther submits quashing ol' the ptt,ceedings at thc threshold. llc :rocedurc that thc lnr cstigrttins ()l'llccr intcnds to lbllorr the trnd the guidelincs contcnrplatL-(i undc't Sc'lt iorl lt(l) o1'th,-' IINSS issr.rcd br thc I lon'blc .'\pcr ('otLrt in Arnesh Kumur (supra) on thc grouncl that the allcged ol'fi'nces ler elled against the petitioners arc ptrnishahlu lr ith irltl.'risol.tlllcllt ol' le'ss than seven \ears F[oueler. the petitir:nels har c not been cooperating lvith the inl'estigation 1 (lr, .;, S S( 4

7. By way of reply, learned counsel lor thc petitioners submits that the petitioners will cooperate with the Investigating Officer the8. Having considered the rival submissions made by respective parties and after perusal ol the material available on record, it reveals that the offences levelled against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment ol less thart seven years. Even Prosecutor, theaccording to the learned Additional Public lnvestigating Oltlcer wiII ibllou the procedule contemplated under Section 35(3) ol'the BNSS and also the guidelines forrnulated by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumtr (supra) above, the petitioners are directed to appear9. ln view of the 14.08.2026 andbefore the Investigating Officer on or befbre aresubmit reply/explanation along with the documents, which available with them. to the lnvcstigating Officer. The Investigating Ollicer is entitled to fbllou' thc procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) olthe BNSS and tollow the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra). the Criminal Petition is disposed of 10. Accordingly. 5 \1i:ccllarreorr,i ;rPplications. pcnding il any. shall stand c losed Sd/- L. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, (llass l\4agistrate at l\'4edchal Cyberabad Frrst 1. fhe Judrcr:rl Offrcer Shamirpet Police Statron. lr'lalkalgiri Distrtct 2 The Statron H.us. to pLrblri; prosecutor, High court for the statt: of Telangana at i t*o ccs Hyderabad {O -Jl '

to SRI E ANJANA REDDY Advocate [OPUC] + Ole CC CoPie s 5. Two CD rPK Fr- HIGH COURT DATED: 0410812026 ORDER E s TA t\ r t ( CRLP.No.11923 of 2026 n z Jc 1 2 A U tr I 02 b c lr(J 'i,.. ) \ * * o c P A Y t CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISPOSED OF a.- ccvq€Lv,- dt"

[ 3303 j IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO:11923 OF 2026 Between: lVl. Govindappa, aged about 59 1. tVamidipalli Anjanayya @ Ir/. Anjaneyulu, S/o. years, R/o. H.No.2-53, Occ.Agriculture OC Colony, B. Ramasagaram village, Beluguppa [\Iandal, Anantapuramu District Andhra Pradesh. M. Lalrtha, Wo lVlamidrpalli Anlanayya @ 2. Mamidipalli Lalilamma @ M. Anjaneyulu, aged about 50 years, R/o. H.No. 2-53, Occ.HouseWife OC Colony, B. Ramasagaram village. Beluguppa ltrlandal, Anantapuramu District. Andhra Pradesh. ..PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No.2 & 3 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Station House Officer, Shamirpet P.S It/alkajgiri District, Through its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the state of Telangana., Hyderabad. 2. Victim Women, Kukatpally,Medchal-Malka;giri ...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated tn the [Vemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in Cr No. 207 of 2026 on the file of Shamirpet Poltce Station, tValkalgiri District l.A. NO: 2 OF 2026

Petition under Sectron 528 of BNSS praying that in the crrcumstances stated In the l,4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in Cr No 207 of 2026 on the file of Shamirpet Poltce Station, lVlalkajgiri District pending drsposal of the above Crtmtnal Petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of I\/r. B. Nageshwar Rao representrng Sri E ANJANA REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Gourt made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STA'TE OF TELANGANA .,{T HYDERABAI) TH E HO\O T]RABI,E SRI JUS'TICE,I.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMI\AI, PETIT ION No.l1923 of 2026 Date: 04.08.2026 Betri,een Mamidipall i A njanayya @; M.An3aneyulu and another ...Petitioners r\ND The State o f' l-clangana, and another Respondents ORDER

'['his C riminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime \o.207 ol 2026 of Shamirpet police Station, Malkalgiri l)istrict, ri.herein the petitioners were arrayed as the accused Nos.2 ;ncl 3 fbr the oftcnces punishable under Sections 69 and 352 r/q. 3 (5)of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 (fbr short 'BNS') and Sections 3 (2) (V) (a) olThc Scheclulcd Castes and The Schedulcd Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 20 I5 (for shorlPOA .A,ct ). 2. Leantecl Addif ional public prosecutor subrnitted that, pursuant to rhe orclcr datcd 28.07.2026, the Investigating Officer served noticc on lhc de facto complainant about filing of the presenl Crinrrnal petition. Despite service of notice. respondent 2 No. 2 has not chosen to enter her appearance. Hence, this Court has no option except to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. learned counsel representing3. Heard Mr.B.Nageshwar Rao, Ms.E.Anjana Reddy, leamed counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. I learned counsel, the criminal4. With the consent of both the petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

petitioners submitted that the5. Learned counsel for the petitioners have not committed the alleged offences and have been falsely implicated in the present case only on the ground that they are the parents of accused No.l. The entire allegations are levelled respondentagainst accused No. l. The petitioners never abused No.2 in the name of her caste. Despite the same, respondent No.2 implicated the petitioners by making omnibus allegations against them. levelled against the5.1. He further submitted that the offences petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. The Investigating Officer, without following the mandatory l ir Nagarikprocedure prcscribe(i under Section i5l3)olthe Bharatif Suraksha Sanhita. I'rll (li)r short'll\SS')and without iirllow'ing (.ourt in Arneshthe gLridetines lbrnrL iatcd hr rhe tlon'ble Suprente Kumar Vs. Srule ol Bihtrt . is procceding further in the nlatter ancl the sanle is colltral-\ 1o la\\

Prosecutor6. Pet' t't.trtti.tt. thr' lcltrncd \dditional Public subrnitted that thcrt: rtt-e spr-.citlc rllc'gations levelled against thc pe t lt rorlc rs IN tht' co rplainr \\ hcthcr thc allcgations levelled in thc o1' cornplaint arc trlle or n()l can be rer caled only' during the course in the inr. estisation. cspcciallr *hen the investigation is still seek progress. At this stage Lhc pctitionels are not cntitle(l to lurther submits quashing ol' the ptt,ceedings at thc threshold. llc :rocedurc that thc lnr cstigrttins ()l'llccr intcnds to lbllorr the trnd the guidelincs contcnrplatL-(i undc't Sc'lt iorl lt(l) o1'th,-' IINSS issr.rcd br thc I lon'blc .'\pcr ('otLrt in Arnesh Kumur (supra) on thc grouncl that the allcged ol'fi'nces ler elled against the petitioners arc ptrnishahlu lr ith irltl.'risol.tlllcllt ol' le'ss than seven \ears F[oueler. the petitir:nels har c not been cooperating lvith the inl'estigation 1 (lr, .;, S S( 4

7. By way of reply, learned counsel lor thc petitioners submits that the petitioners will cooperate with the Investigating Officer the8. Having considered the rival submissions made by respective parties and after perusal ol the material available on record, it reveals that the offences levelled against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment ol less thart seven years. Even Prosecutor, theaccording to the learned Additional Public lnvestigating Oltlcer wiII ibllou the procedule contemplated under Section 35(3) ol'the BNSS and also the guidelines forrnulated by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumtr (supra) above, the petitioners are directed to appear9. ln view of the 14.08.2026 andbefore the Investigating Officer on or befbre aresubmit reply/explanation along with the documents, which available with them. to the lnvcstigating Officer. The Investigating Ollicer is entitled to fbllou' thc procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) olthe BNSS and tollow the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra). the Criminal Petition is disposed of 10. Accordingly. 5 \1i:ccllarreorr,i ;rPplications. pcnding il any. shall stand c losed Sd/- L. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, (llass l\4agistrate at l\'4edchal Cyberabad Frrst 1. fhe Judrcr:rl Offrcer Shamirpet Police Statron. lr'lalkalgiri Distrtct 2 The Statron H.us. to pLrblri; prosecutor, High court for the statt: of Telangana at i t*o ccs Hyderabad {O -Jl '

to SRI E ANJANA REDDY Advocate [OPUC] + Ole CC CoPie s 5. Two CD rPK Fr- HIGH COURT DATED: 0410812026 ORDER E s TA t\ r t ( CRLP.No.11923 of 2026 n z Jc 1 2 A U tr I 02 b c lr(J 'i,.. ) \ * * o c P A Y t CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISPOSED OF a.- ccvq€Lv,- dt"