Telangana High Court
Ponnala Sai Yashwanth vs The State Of Telangana on 17 July, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11208 of 2026
Date: 17.07.2026
Between:
Ponnala Sai Yashwanth
..Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana, and another
...Respondents
ORDER
This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused
No.2, seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.85 of 2022 of
Gandhinagar Police Station, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable
under Sections 420, 406, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(for short ‘IPC‘).
2. Heard Mr.G.Ravi Mohan, learned Senior Counsel representing
Mr.G.Naresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and
2
Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for
respondent No.1.
3. With the consent of both the learned counsel, the criminal
petition is disposed of at the admission stage.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has not committed the alleged offence and has been falsely
implicated in the present crime. Even according to the allegations
made in the complaint, the ingredients of Sections 420, 406, 468, and
471 of the IPC are not attracted against the petitioner. The allegations
levelled in the complaint are purely civil in nature in respect of to
monetary transactions. Respondent No.2 ought to have approached the
competent Civil Court; on the other hand, filed the present complaint
by giving a criminal colour. He further submitted that the offences
under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC are not attracted against the
petitioner and both the offences cannot go together, in view of the
principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Delhi Race Club
(1940) Ltd. & Ors vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr1. Hence, the
1
(2024) 10 SCC 690
3
continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse
of the process of law.
4.1 He further submitted that the petitioner came to know about the
pendency of the crime only recently through his employer. He further
submitted that the offences levelled against the petitioner are
punishable with imprisonment for a term of less than seven years.
However, the Investigating Officer, without following the mandatory
procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”) and the guidelines issued
by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar 2, is
proceeding with the investigation, and the same is contrary to law.
5. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted
that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner and
the other accused that, with a dishonest intention, they committed the
offences against respondent No.2. The said allegations attract the
ingredients of the offences under Sections 420, 406, 468, and 471 of
the IPC. He further submitted that the petitioner has been absconding
and not cooperating with the Investigating Officer since the date of
2
(2014) 8 SCC 273
4
registration of the crime, i.e., 07.03.2022. Due to the petitioner’s non-
availability, the Investigating Officer has already completed the
investigation and filed the final report insofar as accused No.1 is
concerned before the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at
Secunderabad. He further submitted that, since the offences alleged
against the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment for a term of
less than seven years, the Investigating Officer will follow the due
procedure as contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and also
the guidelines formulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh
Kumar (supra).
6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective
parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals
that, based on the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, FIR No.85 of
2022 was registered on 07.03.2022 against the petitioner and accused
No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 468, and
471 of the IPC. The specific case of the petitioner is that he was not
aware of the existence or pendency of the crime and came to know
about it only during the last week of this month through his employer.
The record further reveals that the offences alleged against the
petitioner are punishable with imprisonment for a term of less than
5
seven years. Even according to the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor, the Investigating Officer intends to follow the procedure
contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and also the guidelines
formulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra).
7. In view of the above, the Investigating Officer is directed to
follow the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the BNSS
and also the guidelines formulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Arnesh Kumar (supra). It is needless to mention that the petitioner is
entitled to put forth his grievance by raising all the pleas which are
available to him under law as soon as he receives notice from the
Investigating Officer, and the petitioner shall cooperate with the
investigation.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
17.07.2026
Note: Issue CC in three days
b/o
vsl
