APHC010030712026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 613/2026 Between: 1. IJJADA RAMA LAKSHMANA RAO, S/O. CHINNAIAH, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. SENIOR CITIZEN, R/O. DOOR NO. 18-40-38, REDLA BAZAAR, 3RD LINE, SANGADIGUNTA, GUNTUR CITY. 2. IJJADA LAKSHMI KONDAMMA @ PINNINTI KONDAMMA,, W/O. RAMA LAKSHMANA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO. 18-40-38, REDIA BAZAAR, 3RD LINE, SANGADIGUNTA, GUNTUR CITY. 3. PINNINTI SRAVANTHI, W/O. SRINIVASA RAO @ SRINIVAS, HINDU AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. FLAT NO.F1 DOOR NO.30-2-3/6, SAI RAMANA TOWERS, CHAPARALAVARI STREET, SEETHARAMAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA-3. 4. PINNINTI SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. APPALA SURI, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. BUSINESS, R/O. FLAT NO.FI, DOOR NO.30-2- 3/6, SAI RAMANA TOWERS, CHAPARALAVARI STREET, SEETHARAMAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA-3. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH,NELAPADU, AMARAVATHI. 2. SHO, MAHILA URBAN POLICE STATION, NTR, COMMISSIONARATE, VIJAYAWADA 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.613 of 2026 Dated 29.01.2026 3. IJJADA BAKURU SRI MAHA LAKSHMI, W/O. MOHAN SAI, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, KAPU, R/O. AMBAPURAM, M G RESIDENCE,88E-15, PARDHASARADHI STREET, VIJAYAWADA. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): KANADHI BHATLA SRINIVASA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 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.2 to 5 in Crime No.119 of 2025 of Mahila Urban Police Station, Vijayawada, NTR District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, the BNS’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3. On perusal of the record, the alleged offences levelled against the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 5 are punishable with imprisonment for less than seven (07) years. 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.613 of 2026 Dated 29.01.2026 4. A perusal of the FIR and the material placed on record, prima facie, shows that to elicit the truth or otherwise of the allegations against the petitioners made by respondent No.3 requires a thorough investigation. 5. 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.” 6. 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 stage that the proceedings are manifestly attended with malafide or instituted with an ulterior motive. 7. 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 1(2014) 8 SCC 273 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.613 of 2026 Dated 29.01.2026 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.613 of 2026 Dated 29.01.2026 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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: 29.01.2026 RSI 2(2023) 8 SCC 632 6 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.613 of 2026 Dated 29.01.2026 61 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.613 of 2026 Date: 29.01.2026 RSI