APHC010020912026 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. DINESH MIRIYALA, S/O. M. GANGA RAJU,AGED ABOUT31 YEARS, OEE SOFTWARE EMPLOYEER/O. H.NO.2 VINAKYA TEMPLE,PEDAVEGI MANDAL, ELURU DISTRIET. 2. MALLESWARI NAMBURI, W/O. DINESH MIRIYALAAGED ABOUT27 YEARS, OEE SOFTWARE NEAR VINAKYA TEMPLE,PEDAVEGI MANDAL, ELURU DISTRIET. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS SHO, PEDAVEGI POLIEE STATION, ELURU,THROUGH ITS PUBLIE PROSEEUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH 2. GANGA RAJU MIRIYALA, S/O. ANJCINEYULU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,R/O. NEAR VINAYAKA TEMPLE, VANGURU VILLAGEPEDAVEGI MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT 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 call for the records in FIR No. 127 of 2025, dated 20.05.2025 on the file of Pedavegi Police Station, Eluru for the offence under section 329(4), 115(2), same and pass 1 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: 314/2026 DINESH MIRIYALA, S/O. M. GANGA RAJU,AGED ABOUT31 YEARS, OEE SOFTWARE EMPLOYEER/O. H.NO.2-39, VANGUM. NEAR VINAKYA TEMPLE,PEDAVEGI MANDAL, ELURU DISTRIET. MALLESWARI NAMBURI, W/O. DINESH MIRIYALAAGED ABOUT27 YEARS, OEE SOFTWARE EMPLOYEER/O. H.NO.2-39, VANGURU. NEAR VINAKYA TEMPLE,PEDAVEGI MANDAL, ELURU DISTRIET. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS SHO, PEDAVEGI POLIEE STATION, ELURU,THROUGH ITS PUBLIE PROSEEUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH GANGA RAJU MIRIYALA, S/O. ANJCINEYULU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,R/O. NEAR VINAYAKA TEMPLE, VANGURU VILLAGEPEDAVEGI MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS e circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtpleased to call for the records in FIR No. 127 of 2025, dated 20.05.2025 on the file of Pedavegi Police Station, Eluru for the offence under section 329(4), 115(2), 351(2) r/w 3(5) of BNS and quash the Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.314 of 2026 Dated 19.01.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3521] THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO DINESH MIRIYALA, S/O. M. GANGA RAJU,AGED ABOUT31 YEARS, 39, VANGUM. NEAR VINAKYA TEMPLE,PEDAVEGI MANDAL, ELURU DISTRIET. MALLESWARI NAMBURI, W/O. DINESH MIRIYALAAGED ABOUT27 39, VANGURU. NEAR VINAKYA TEMPLE,PEDAVEGI MANDAL, ELURU DISTRIET. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS SHO, PEDAVEGI POLIEE STATION, ELURU,THROUGH ITS PUBLIE GANGA RAJU MIRIYALA, S/O. ANJCINEYULU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,R/O. NEAR VINAYAKA TEMPLE, VANGURU ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS e circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtpleased to call for the records in FIR No. 127 of 2025, dated 20.05.2025 on the file of Pedavegi Police Station, Eluru for the 351(2) r/w 3(5) of BNS and quash the 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.314 of 2026 Dated 19.01.2026 IA NO: 1 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 dispense with filing of Certified Copy of the proceedings in FIR No. 127 of 2025, dated 20.05.2025 on the file of Pedavegi Police Station, Eluru, 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 grant of stay of all further proceedings in FIR No. 127 of 2025, dated 20.05.2025 on the file of Pedavegi Police Station, Eluru, for the offence under section 329(4), 115(2), 351(2) r/w 3(5) of BNS and disposal of the above criminal petition, pending disposal of the quash petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. SOMISETTY GANESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.314 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 petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 in FIR No. 127 of 2025, dated 20.05.2025 on the file of Pedavegi Police Station, Eluru for the offence under section 329(4), 115(2), 351(2) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, “the BNS”). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3. As seen from the record, the Station House Officer, Pedavegi Police Station, registered the written statement of respondent No.2/de-facto complainant as a case in Cr.No. 127 of 2025, dated 20.05.2025 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 29(4), 115(2), 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of ‘the BNS’. The alleged offence levelled against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 are 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 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 1(2014) 8 SCC 273 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.314 of 2026 Dated 19.01.2026 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 which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine. 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.314 of 2026 Dated 19.01.2026 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 petitioners are obliged to render their 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