The Telangana High Court has declined to quash criminal proceedings against four accused persons, despite acknowledging that the alleged offence predates the enactment of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
In its order dated January 7, 2026, the Court clarified that an incorrect application of statutory provisions alone cannot justify quashing proceedings at the threshold.
Background of the Case
The petition was filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), seeking to quash proceedings in Sessions Case No. 143 of 2025 pending before the Principal Sessions Judge, Bhadradri Kothagudem.
The accused argued that the alleged offence occurred in 2019 and continued only up to six months before the complaint was filed in December 2024. Since the BNS came into force only on July 1, 2024, they contended that the case should have been registered under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), not the BNS.
What Happened During the Hearing
Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the invocation of Section 69 of the BNS—relating to sexual intercourse induced by deceit or false promise of marriage—was legally unsustainable for acts committed prior to the new law’s enforcement.
The State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, did not dispute that the alleged offence occurred before the BNS came into effect.
The Court examined the complaint, which alleged that the complainant was induced into a sexual relationship on the promise of marriage, which was later denied by the accused.
Court’s Key Observation
The Court made a crucial distinction between procedural error and substantive illegality.
It observed that although offences committed before July 1, 2024 must ordinarily be governed by the IPC and CrPC, merely registering the case under the BNS does not automatically invalidate the proceedings.
Read Also:- Telangana HC Quashes CRPF Constable’s Removal After He Went Missing During Training, Orders Family Benefits
The judge noted that Section 69 of the BNS is a newly introduced provision without a direct equivalent in the IPC. However, the allegations in the complaint could still be assessed under relevant IPC provisions during trial.
Importantly, the Court emphasized that:
“The ingredients of the complaint must be examined by the trial Court while framing the charges.”
Court’s Decision
Refusing to quash the proceedings, the High Court disposed of the criminal petition with directions to the trial court.
It directed the Sessions Court to carefully examine the complaint and frame appropriate charges under the correct legal provisions before proceeding further.
All pending miscellaneous applications were also closed.
Case Details Section:
Case Title: Palivela Ravikumar & Ors vs State of Telangana & Anr
Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 64 of 2026
Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad
Judge: Justice Tirumala Devi Eada
Date: January 7, 2026
