For offences punishable below seven years, investigators must follow BNSS Section 35(3) and Arnesh Kumar safeguards.

The petitioners, arrayed as Accused Nos. 1 and 2, sought quashing of Crime No. 406 of 2026 registered at Siddipet I Town Police Station for offences under Sections 318(4) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The complaint alleged that the petitioners dishonestly promised Respondent No. 2 employment and collected ₹2,90,000 from him.

The petitioners contended that the dispute arose from monetary transactions, was civil in nature, and that Respondent No. 2 had already filed a civil suit for recovery of the same amount before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Siddipet.

They also alleged that the Investigating Officer had not followed Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) or the safeguards prescribed in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.

The prosecution opposed quashing, asserting that the allegations disclosed the ingredients of cheating and that the investigation was still pending.

The petitioners ultimately undertook to cooperate with the investigation.

1. Whether the criminal proceedings under Sections 318(4) read with 3(5) of the BNS should be quashed on the ground that the allegations arise from a monetary dispute and a civil suit concerning the same transaction is pending.

2. Whether, where the alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, the Investigating Officer must comply with Section 35(3) of the BNSS and the safeguards laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.

3. Whether the petitioners should be directed to cooperate with the investigation by appearing before the Investigating Officer and submitting their explanation and supporting documents.

The Court applied Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the BNS, concerning the alleged offence of cheating committed with common intention.

It also applied Section 35(3) of the BNSS, which governs the procedure for requiring the appearance of an accused where arrest is not automatically warranted, particularly in offences punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years.

The Court relied on Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, which requires investigating officers and Magistrates to follow safeguards against unnecessary arrest in offences punishable with imprisonment of up to seven years.

The pendency of a civil proceeding does not, by itself, bar criminal prosecution where the complaint contains allegations disclosing a cognizable penal offence.

The Court did not accept the petitioners’ request for quashing at the investigation stage.

Although the petitioners characterised the dispute as civil and relied on the pending recovery suit, the prosecution alleged that they had dishonestly induced Respondent No. 2 by making a false promise of employment and had collected ₹2,90,000, allegations which, on their face, could attract Section 318(4) read with Section 3(5) of the BNS.

Whether those allegations were true could be determined only through investigation, and the existence of a civil suit was not treated as a complete bar to criminal proceedings.

However, since the alleged offences were punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, the Court emphasised compliance with Section 35(3) of the BNSS and the safeguards in Arnesh Kumar.

In view of the prosecution’s assurance that the statutory procedure would be followed and the petitioners’ undertaking to cooperate, the Court considered it appropriate to issue procedural directions rather than quash the FIR.

The petitioners were directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on or before 27 September 2026 and submit their reply or explanation, along with the documents available to them.

The Investigating Officer was directed to follow Section 35(3) of the BNSS and the guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar.

All pending miscellaneous applications were closed.