APHC010468262025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 23739/2025 Between: 1. PRASAD KISHORE SINGH,, SON OF LATE BALAJI SINGH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS. BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.23/1345, TEKKE MITTA, NEAR LAKSHMI PICKELS, NELLORE CITY, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HORAE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE, ANAKAPALLE DISTRICT, ANAKAPALLE. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NARSIPATNAM TOWN, NARSIPATNAM, ANAKAPALLE DISTRICT. 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NARSIPATNAM TOWN POLICE STATION, NARSIPATNAM, ANAKAPALLE DISTRICT 5. PRASAD SUDHA RANI CHEEPURUPALLI SUDHA RANI, DAUGHTER OF CHEEPURUPALLI RAJU, R/O. GACHPAU VEEDHI, NARSIPATNAM TOWN, MUNICIPALITY AND MANDAL, ANAKAPALLE DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V SURENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “.... a Writ of Mandamus declaring the issuance of Police Witness Notice dated nil as issued under Section 179 of BNSS by the 4th respondents herein by calling to the police station is contrary to the registration of Cr.No.l63 of 2025 by the 4th and 5th respondents is arbitrary illegal unconstitutional abuse of power by the 3rd and 4th respondents herein and calling to the police station frequently without 2 issuing a notice under Section 353 of BNSS which is mandatory under the alleged Crime in the light of the guidelines as directed in Arnesh Kumar Judgment and consequently set aside the illegal Police witness notice dated nil as issued by the 4th respondent under Section 179 BNSS and further direct the 3rd and 4th respondents herein to permit the petitioner and others in Cr No l63 of 2025 may be permitted to participate through video conference if investigation is necessary in the light of a void marriage as admitted by the 5th respondent through her mutual decree as passed by the Competent Civil Court in HMOP No 22 of 2019 on the file of Senior Civil Judge Narsipatnam dated 04 12 2019 and further crave leave of this Honble Court to direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents herein to consider the void marriage as settled by the Apex Court in Lily Thomos Judgment of mutual decree as part of investigation stated supra before filing the final report or closure report in the light of maintainability of the alleged crime and further prosecution” 2. Heard Sri V.Surendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Md.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is facing a case in Crime No.163 of 2025 of Narsipatnam Town Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Section 85 of the BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is further submitted that the petitioner has received a notice under Section 179 of the BNSS to appear before the Investigating Officer in connection with the said crime. Learned counsel would further submit that a direction may be given to the police not to take any coercive action against the petitioner, as all the alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, and further prays for a direction to the police to strictly adhere to the procedure under Section 35(3) of the BNSS. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the investigation. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 3 5. Considering the submissions made, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, the respondent-police are directed not to take any coercive action against the petitioner, since the offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. The police are further directed to follow the guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar1. The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and attend before the Investigation Officer as and when required. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:08.09.2025 Asr 1 (2014) 8 SCC 273 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.23739 of 2025 Dt.08.09.2025 Asr