Telangana High Court
Criminal Procedure and EvidenceCriminal Law

Investigation for offences punishable below seven years must comply with BNSS Section 35(3) and Arnesh Kumar safeguards.

Malreddypally Konda Pentaiah vs The State of Telangana

Telangana High CourtJUDGMENT: September 10, 20263 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Investigation for offences punishable below seven years must comply with BNSS Section 35(3) and Arnesh Kumar safeguards.. Malreddypally  Konda Pentaiah vs The State of Telangana. Telangana High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The petitioners, Accused Nos. 1 to 8, invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) seeking quashing of Crime No. 135 of 2026 registered at Kulkacherla Police Station, Vikarabad District, for offences under Sections 329(3), 324(4), 352 and 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as amended.

Source reference: para. 1

The petitioners contended that the dispute was essentially civil, arising from a title, mortgage and possession dispute in O.S. No. 81 of 2010, and that respondent No. 2 had given the dispute a criminal colour. They also relied on the pendency of A.S. No. 365 of 2024, in which an interim status quo order had been granted.

Source reference: para. 4.1

The petitioners further alleged non-compliance with Section 35(3) of the BNSS and the principles in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, particularly since the alleged offences carried punishment of less than seven years’ imprisonment.

Source reference: para. 4.2

The prosecution opposed quashing, submitting that the complaint contained specific allegations of caste-based abuse and disclosed cognizable offences, while undertaking that the Investigating Officer would follow the statutory procedure and the Arnesh Kumar guidelines.

Source reference: paras. 5.1–5.2
02

Issues

1. Whether the criminal proceedings in Crime No. 135 of 2026 were liable to be quashed under Section 528 of the BNSS on the ground that the allegations arose out of a predominantly civil dispute and constituted an abuse of process.

Source reference: paras. 4.1, 5.1, 7

2. Whether, in respect of offences punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, the Investigating Officer was required to follow Section 35(3) of the BNSS and the safeguards laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.

Source reference: paras. 4.2, 5.2, 7

3. Whether the petitioners were entitled to a direction regulating their appearance and cooperation during the investigation instead of quashing the crime.

Source reference: paras. 7–9
03

Law Applied

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, which permits appropriate orders to prevent abuse of the process of law and secure the ends of justice.

Source reference: para. 1

Section 35(3) of the BNSS requires adherence to the prescribed procedure, including issuance of notice where arrest is not immediately warranted in offences punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years.

Source reference: paras. 4.2, 7

The Court also applied the safeguards in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, requiring investigating and arresting officers to avoid unnecessary arrest and to follow the statutory procedure in offences carrying punishment of less than seven years.

Source reference: paras. 4.2, 5.2, 8
04

Reasoning

The Court noted that the complaint contained specific allegations, including caste-based abuse, which prima facie disclosed cognizable offences; consequently, the disputed factual allegations could not be conclusively assessed at the investigation stage.

Source reference: para. 5.1

Although the petitioners relied on the pending civil proceedings and alleged abuse of criminal process, the Court did not accept those submissions as a basis for quashing the crime at that stage.

Source reference: paras. 5.2, 7–8

Since the alleged offences were punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, and the prosecution acknowledged the applicability of Section 35(3) of the BNSS and Arnesh Kumar, the Court considered procedural safeguards to be an adequate measure pending investigation.

Source reference: paras. 5.2, 7–8

The petitioners’ undertaking to cooperate with the investigation also supported disposal of the petition through protective directions rather than termination of the proceedings.

Source reference: para. 6
05

Holding

The Court declined to quash Crime No. 135 of 2026.

It directed Accused Nos. 1 to 8 to appear before the Investigating Officer on or before 26 September 2026 and directed the Investigating Officer to scrupulously follow Section 35(3) of the BNSS and the guidelines in Arnesh Kumar.

Source reference: para. 8

The petitioners were required to cooperate with the investigation and were permitted to raise all available pleas and submit documents in their custody.

Source reference: para. 9

The Criminal Petition was accordingly disposed of, and pending miscellaneous applications were closed.

Source reference: para. 9
06

Acts & Sections Cited

8 provisions across 3 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20232

Code of Civil Procedure, 19081

Telangana High Court

Original Court PDF

Malreddypally Konda PentaiahvsThe State of Telangana

Telangana High Court · September 10, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment