Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 669 (TS)

Virigineni Prasad v. State of Telangana

2025-05-14

J.SREENIVAS RAO

body2025
ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction to the respondents more particularly the respondent No.2 and its subordinates in calling the petitioners to the police station, directly interfering with life and personal liberty of the petitioner under the guise of registration of FIR No.914/2025 (PS Gachibowli dated 06-05-2025), is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unconstitutional, violation of principles of natural justice, and violative of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” 2. Heard Sri Khaja Vizarath Ali, learned counsel representing Sri Syed Yousuf, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home Department, appearing on behalf of the respondents. 3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not arrayed as an accused in Crime No.914 of 2025, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 319(2), 140(3), 308(5), 118(1) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). However, respondent No.2 is calling upon the petitioner to the police station under the guise of registration of the aforesaid crime. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the ingredients of Section 308(5) of BNS are not attracted against the petitioner. The other offences levelled in the complaint are punishable with an imprisonment of less than seven years. However, the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation. Respondent No.2, with an oblique motive, to avoid the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), and the guidelines formulated by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar , (2014) 8 SCC 273 , included the offence under Section 308(5) of BNS. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home Department appearing for the respondents submits that the investigation is under progress and during the course of investigation, it reveals whether the petitioner’s role is there in the crime or not. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home Department appearing for the respondents submits that the investigation is under progress and during the course of investigation, it reveals whether the petitioner’s role is there in the crime or not. At this stage, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for in the writ petition. 6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that basing on the complaint lodged by one Sri Ponnaganti Sudhakar, Crime No.914/2025 was registered on the file of Gachibowli Police Station on 06.05.2025 for the offences under Sections 319(2), 140(3), 308(5), 118(1) and 61(2) of BNS. In the said crime, the petitioner was not arrayed as an accused as on today. Even about the allegations, the specific contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the ingredients under Section 308(5) of BNS are not attracted against the petitioner. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the petitioner to appear before the Investigation Officer on or before 20.05.2025. On such appearance of the petitioner, the Investigation Officer is directed to scrupulously follow the procedure contemplated under Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Section 35(3) of BNSS and the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra). 8. It is made clear that the petitioner shall cooperate with the Investigation Officer for the investigation and make himself available to the Investigation Officer as and when required and also provide the information/ documents as sought by him to conclude the investigation. 9. If the petitioner fails to cooperate with the Investigation Officer for investigation, the Investigation Officer is at liberty to take action against him in accordance with law. 10. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.