APHC010018192026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: Between: 1. MARISETTY SUDHEER ANJANI SAI SUDHEER, S/O MARISETTY RAMAKRISHNA,AGE 30 YEARS, R/O 9 MANDAPAKA MANDALAM,TANUKU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 534211. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATHI 2. MARISETTI HEMASRI, W/O ANJANI SAI SUDHEER, AGED 26 YEARS,R/O KOMARAVARAM VILLAGE, TANUKU MANDAL WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. Petition under Section 437/438/439/ praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtpleased to Quash the criminal proceedings against Petitioner/Accused No.1 in Cr.No.178 of 2025 dated 10.10.2025 on the file of Tanuku Rural P.S, West Godavari District registered for the offences punishable under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Section 3,4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, as they are lacking merits and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Crl.P.No. Dated IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 315/2026 MARISETTY SUDHEER ANJANI SAI SUDHEER, S/O MARISETTY RAMAKRISHNA,AGE 30 YEARS, R/O 9-189,VENKATARAPURAM, MANDAPAKA MANDALAM,TANUKU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATHI MARISETTI HEMASRI, W/O ANJANI SAI SUDHEER, AGED 26 YEARS,R/O KOMARAVARAM VILLAGE, TANUKU MANDAL WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtpleased to Quash the criminal proceedings against Petitioner/Accused No.1 in Cr.No.178 of 2025 dated 10.10.2025 on he file of Tanuku Rural P.S, West Godavari District registered for the offences punishable under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Section 3,4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, as they are lacking merits and pass Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.315 of 2026 Dated 19.01.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3521] THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO MARISETTY SUDHEER ANJANI SAI SUDHEER, S/O MARISETTY 189,VENKATARAPURAM, MANDAPAKA MANDALAM,TANUKU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT- ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATHI MARISETTI HEMASRI, W/O ANJANI SAI SUDHEER, AGED 26 YEARS,R/O KOMARAVARAM VILLAGE, TANUKU MANDAL WEST ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtpleased to Quash the criminal proceedings against Petitioner/Accused No.1 in Cr.No.178 of 2025 dated 10.10.2025 on he file of Tanuku Rural P.S, West Godavari District registered for the offences punishable under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Section 3,4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, as they are lacking merits and pass Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.315 of 2026 Dated 19.01.2026 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased pleased to dispense with filing of certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.178 of 2025 dated 10.10.2025 on the file of Tanuku Rural P.S, West Godavari District registered for the offences punishable under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Section 3,4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2026 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased Pleased to stay all further proceedings including arrest of the Cr.No.178 of 2025 dated 10.10.2025 on the file of Tanuku Rural P.S, West Godavari District registered for the offences punishable under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Section 3,4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. ARUN SHOWRI G Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.315 of 2026 Dated 19.01.2026 ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.,’)/Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/Accused No.1 in Cr.No.178 of 2025 dated 10.10.2025 on the file of Tanuku Rural Police Station, West Godavari District registered for the offences punishable under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, “the BNS”) and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3. As seen from the record, the Station House Officer, Tanuku Police Station, registered the written statement of respondent No.2/de-facto complainant as a case in Cr.No.178 of 2025 dated 10.10.2025 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, “the BNS”) and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The alleged offence levelled against the petitioner/Accused No.1 is punishable with imprisonment for less than seven (07) years. 4. In this regard, it is apposite to mention the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar1, wherein a detailed guidelines were issued 1(2014) 8 SCC 273 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.315 of 2026 Dated 19.01.2026 at Para Nos.11 and 12, for arresting a person, which are being reproduced herein below:- 11.Our endeavor in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorize detention casually and mechanically. In order to ensure what we have observed above, we give the following direction: a).All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.’); b)All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub- clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii); c) The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention; d) The Magistrate while authorizing detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorize detention; e) The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing; f) Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41-A of Cr.P.C be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the District for the reasons to be recorded in writing; g) Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, he shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction. h) Authorizing detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court. 12.We hasten to add that the directions aforesaid shall not only apply to the cases under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the case in hand, but also such cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.315 of 2026 Dated 19.01.2026 which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine. 5. The similar view is also reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Md. Asfak Alam v. the State of Jharkhand 2, which also reiterated the guidelines laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar. 6. In the light of the law laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar and Md. Asfak Alam, the investigating officer is under legal obligation to proceed in accordance with law, but he shall follow the procedure prescribed under Sections 41 and 41(A) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ (now Sections 35 and 35(3) of ‘the B.N.S.S.,’ 2023). The petitioner is obliged to render his fullest cooperation in the ongoing investigation. 7. In the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the Investigating Officer to comply with Section 35(3) of ‘the BNSS’/41-A of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and to strictly follow the directions issued in the cases of Arnesh Kumar and MD. Asfak Alam. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 19.01.2026 KKV 2(2023) 8 SCC 632