APHC010027262026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: Between: 1. CHALAMARLA SAI KRISHNA, S/O RAVI, AGED ABOUT 22YRS,R/O 5-96, CHANDARLAPADU MANDAL,PATHA BELLAM KONDA VARI PALEM, LINGALAPADU,KRISHNA, ANDHRA PRADESH. 521185 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PROSECUTORHIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI 2. ECHURI PANDURANGA VITTAL, S/O NARASIMHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 47YRS,R/O VASAVI MARKET, NANDIGAMA, NTR DISTRICT 3. ECHURI PALLAVI, S/O YECHURI PANDURANGA VITTAL, AGED ABOUT 20YRS,R/O VASAVI MARKET, 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 FIR file of the Nandigama Police Station, NTR District 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 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 471/2026 CHALAMARLA SAI KRISHNA, S/O RAVI, AGED ABOUT 22YRS,R/O 96, CHANDARLAPADU MANDAL,PATHA BELLAM KONDA VARI PALEM, LINGALAPADU,KRISHNA, ANDHRA PRADESH. 521185 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PROSECUTORHIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT ECHURI PANDURANGA VITTAL, S/O NARASIMHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 47YRS,R/O VASAVI MARKET, NANDIGAMA, NTR DISTRICT ECHURI PALLAVI, S/O YECHURI PANDURANGA VITTAL, AGED ABOUT 20YRS,R/O VASAVI MARKET, NANDIGAMA, NTR 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 FIR No.518/2025 on the file of the Nandigama Police Station, NTR District 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 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3521] THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CHALAMARLA SAI KRISHNA, S/O RAVI, AGED ABOUT 22YRS,R/O 96, CHANDARLAPADU MANDAL,PATHA BELLAM KONDA VARI PALEM, LINGALAPADU,KRISHNA, ANDHRA PRADESH. 521185 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTORHIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT ECHURI PANDURANGA VITTAL, S/O NARASIMHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 47YRS,R/O VASAVI MARKET, NANDIGAMA, NTR DISTRICT ECHURI PALLAVI, S/O YECHURI PANDURANGA VITTAL, AGED NANDIGAMA, NTR 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 No.518/2025 on the 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 2 the FIR No.518/2025 on the file of the Nandigama Police Station, NTR District 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 stay all further proceedings in FIR No.518/2025 on the file of the Nandigama Police Station, NTR District pending disposal of the criminal petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. VELADI SAI SRI HARSHA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 471/2026 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.2 in FIR No.518/2025 on the file of the Nandigama Police Station, NTR District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under head of Woman Missing Person. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.2 and the Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. Perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner brings to the notice of this Court that an order was passed in I.A. No.02 of 2025 in Crl.P. No.12815 of 2025, wherein, at paragraph No.2, it was observed that accused No.1, aged about 20 years, had eloped with respondent No.3 to Bangalore due to a love affair between them. Initially, a case was registered under the head of “Woman Missing.” Subsequently, the family members of respondent No.3 traced her at Bangalore and brought her to the local police station. Accused No.1 was kept in police custody for about three (03) days. Thereafter, accused No.1 filed a writ petition, pursuant to which the police altered the woman missing case to offences punishable under Sections 331(4), 305(a), 104(3), 351(2), and 61(2) 4 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, relating to offences such as kidnapping for ransom, house trespass, etc. 4. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, accused No.1 was granted the relief of compliance under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The police were further directed that the investigation shall go on, and accused No.1 was directed to cooperate with the investigation. 5. In the present case, the petitioner is accused No.2, who is a friend of accused No.1. The petitioner, aged about 22 years and he relies upon the order passed in I.A. No.02 of 2025 in Crl.P. No.12815 of 2025 and seeks similar protection, directing the Investigating Officer to comply with Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Practical Solutions Inc. v. State of Telangana, Criminal Appeal No. 353 of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Criminal) Diary No.953 of 2026), on dated 19.01.2026 has held as follows: “We also take notice of the fact that the petition before the High Court was to quash the FIR. In a petition where quashing of the FIR is prayed for, the High Court should not have passed an order directing the Investigating Officer to comply with Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, because it indirectly amounts to granting a relief which the High Court could have considered only if a prima facie case for quashing of the FIR is made out.” 7. In the present case, this Court is not satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for quashing the FIR or the proceedings. The allegations cannot be said to be inherently improbable or absurd, nor can it be concluded at this 5 stage that the proceedings are manifestly attended with malafide or instituted with an ulterior motive. 8. However, 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 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 1(2014) 8 SCC 273 6 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. 09. 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. 10. 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 Nos.1 to 5/accused Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6 are obliged to render their fullest cooperation in the ongoing investigation. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Investigating Officer is directed to comply with Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The Investigating Officer shall conduct the investigation in accordance with law and shall explore all aspects of the matter. If the accusations are to be well founded attracting any penal provisions, the 2(2023) 8 SCC 632 7 Investigating Officer shall follow the procedure established by law. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO Date 23.01.2026 Note: C.C. By today b/o KKV