The Telangana High Court’s interim order in Criminal Petition No. 3559 of 2026 underscores a critical safeguard against arbitrary criminalization in civil property disputes. By directing strict adherence to procedural norms under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the Court reaffirmed that allegations alone, even if serious, cannot override statutory safeguards designed to prevent misuse of criminal process.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, six individuals including family members of a property purchaser, were named as accused in Crime No. 01/2026 filed by Smt. Tanniyath, the complainant. She alleged that the original property owner (Accused No. 1) forged documents to transfer ownership to the petitioners, who then obtained revenue records and pattadhar passbooks in their names. The complainant claims she was the rightful heir and that the sale deed was fraudulent.
Procedural History
The case was registered at Mominpet Police Station, Vikarabad, under Sections 336(3), 318(4), 319, 338, 340(2), 61(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). No arrest had been made at the time of the petition, but the petitioners feared imminent arrest without compliance with mandatory investigation procedures.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS and an interim stay on arrest, arguing they were innocent purchasers acting in good faith, with all documents duly registered and revenue records mutated in their favor.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 35(3) of the BNSS requires the Investigating Officer to apply judicial discretion before initiating coercive action against individuals alleged in a property dispute, particularly when the allegations do not prima facie establish criminal intent against them.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that the petitioners were bona fide purchasers who paid valuable consideration and obtained lawful title through registered sale deeds and official revenue mutations. He contended that the alleged offences under Sections 336(3), 318(4), 319, 340(2), and 61(2) of the BNS require proof of dishonest intent at the time of transaction, which was absent against the petitioners. He further relied on Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar to assert that arrest cannot be automatic, especially for offences punishable with less than seven years’ imprisonment, and that Section 35(3) of the BNSS mandates a reasoned application of mind before proceeding against accused persons.
For the Respondent
The Additional Public Prosecutor did not contest the petitioners’ status as purchasers but argued that the investigation must proceed to determine the authenticity of the sale deed and the complainant’s claim of inheritance. No specific legal rebuttal was offered regarding procedural non-compliance under BNSS.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged that the petitioners’ status as registered purchasers with revenue records in their name created a strong prima facie defense against allegations of conspiracy or forgery. It noted that Section 338 of the BNS - which criminalizes causing harm by act endangering life or personal safety - does not apply to mere property transfer disputes absent evidence of physical harm or threat.
"Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the ingredients of the offence under Section 338 of the BNS are not attracted against the petitioner."
The Court emphasized that while quashing was premature at the investigation stage, the Investigating Officer was bound by Section 35(3) of the BNSS, which requires a written order justifying the necessity of arrest or coercive measures. The Court further referenced Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar to reinforce that the presumption of innocence and proportionality must guide investigative action, particularly in non-violent, civilly-rooted disputes.
The Court declined to stay investigation but mandated strict compliance with statutory procedure, effectively placing the burden on the State to demonstrate why coercive steps against the petitioners were necessary.
The Verdict
The petitioners did not obtain quashing or an arrest stay, but the Court ruled in their favor procedurally. The Court held that arrest or coercive action against the petitioners cannot proceed without a reasoned order under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, and directed the Investigating Officer to comply with due process.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Arrest Is Not Automatic in Property Disputes
- Practitioners must now insist on a written application under Section 35(3) BNSS before any arrest in cases involving property transactions
- Where accused are registered purchasers with revenue records, courts may treat allegations of forgery as civil disputes unless clear evidence of criminal intent emerges
- Failure to comply with Section 35(3) renders subsequent arrest illegal and subject to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution
Burden of Proof Lies with the State on Intent
- The Court implicitly recognized that dishonest intent under BNS Sections 336(3), 318(4), 340(2) must be established at the time of transaction
- Mere possession of mutated records or possession of property does not equate to criminal conspiracy
- Practitioners should file applications under Section 173(8) BNSS to seek clarification on the basis of criminal intent alleged
Procedural Compliance Overrides Allegations
- Courts will not permit investigation to proceed as a tool of harassment in civil disputes
- Police must record reasons for targeting specific accused, especially where they are not the original alleged wrongdoer
- Non-compliance with BNSS procedures can be raised as a ground for discharge or quashing at any stage, even post-chargesheet
