APHC010047002026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: Between: 1. SK SAJID, S/O. VAHID, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,OCCUPATION DOCTOR,R/O. 11-1-73/3, SANTHOSH NAGAR,KANDUKUR TOWN MANDAL - 523105,SRI POTTI SRIRAMULU NELLORE DISTRICT PRESENTLY PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2. P BABU SAHEB, S/O. CHINNA HIMAM SAHEB, YEARS.OCCUPATION ACCOUNTANT IN COMPTROLLER ANDAUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA, GOVERNMENT OF INDIAR/O. 41-21/4-6A, GROUND FLOOR, KORADA VIJAYKUMAT STREET,KRISHNALANKA, VIJAYAWADA 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS STATION HOUSE OFFICER,KANDUKUR TOWN POLICE STATION,SRI POTTI SRIRAMULU NELLORE DISTRICT PRESENTLY PRAKASAM DISTRICT,THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. SHAIK MANZOOR BASHA, S/O. MAHABOOB BASHA, AGED 30 YEARS.OCCUPATION CAR DRIVER,R/O. JANARDHANA COLONY,KANDUKUR TOWN MANDAL SRIRAMULU NELLORE DISTRICT PRESENTLY PRAKASAM 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 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 706/2026 SK SAJID, S/O. VAHID, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,OCCUPATION 73/3, SANTHOSH NAGAR,KANDUKUR TOWN 523105,SRI POTTI SRIRAMULU NELLORE DISTRICT PRESENTLY PRAKASAM DISTRICT. P BABU SAHEB, S/O. CHINNA HIMAM SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.OCCUPATION ACCOUNTANT IN COMPTROLLER ANDAUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA, GOVERNMENT OF INDIAR/O. 6A, GROUND FLOOR, KORADA VIJAYKUMAT STREET,KRISHNALANKA, VIJAYAWADA - 520013,N.T.R DIS ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND DHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS STATION HOUSE OFFICER,KANDUKUR TOWN POLICE STATION,SRI POTTI SRIRAMULU NELLORE DISTRICT PRESENTLY PRAKASAM DISTRICT,THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH. SHAIK MANZOOR BASHA, S/O. MAHABOOB BASHA, AGED 30 YEARS.OCCUPATION CAR DRIVER,R/O. JANARDHANA COLONY,KANDUKUR TOWN MANDAL - 523105,SRI POTTI SRIRAMULU NELLORE DISTRICT PRESENTLY PRAKASAM ...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 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3521] THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO SK SAJID, S/O. VAHID, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,OCCUPATION 73/3, SANTHOSH NAGAR,KANDUKUR TOWN 523105,SRI POTTI SRIRAMULU NELLORE DISTRICT AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.OCCUPATION ACCOUNTANT IN COMPTROLLER ANDAUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA, GOVERNMENT OF INDIAR/O. 6A, GROUND FLOOR, KORADA VIJAYKUMAT 520013,N.T.R DIS ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) DHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS STATION HOUSE OFFICER,KANDUKUR TOWN POLICE STATION,SRI POTTI SRIRAMULU NELLORE DISTRICT PRESENTLY PRAKASAM DISTRICT,THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HONBLE HIGH SHAIK MANZOOR BASHA, S/O. MAHABOOB BASHA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.OCCUPATION CAR DRIVER,R/O. JANARDHANA 523105,SRI POTTI SRIRAMULU NELLORE DISTRICT PRESENTLY PRAKASAM ...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 2 Criminal Petition, the High Courtpleased to call for the records and Quash the Crime No:6/2026, dated 17.01.2026 on the file of Station House Officer (SHO), Kandukur Town Police Station for the alleged offences punishable U/s 318(4) r/w 3(5) BNS against Petitioners and pass 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 the original certified copy of Crime No:6/2026, dated 17.01.2026 on the file of Station House Officer (SHO), Kandukur Town Police Stationbefore this Hon’ble Court 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 future proceedings including appearance in Crime No:6/2026, dated 17.01.2026 on the file of Station House Officer (SHO), Kandukur Town Police Station for the alleged offences punishable U/s 318(4) r/w 3(5) BNS against Petitioners and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. GUNDALA SIVA PRASADA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 3 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 Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No:6/2026, dated 17.01.2026 on the file of Station House Officer (SHO), Kandukur Town Police Station registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 318(4) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, the BNS). 2. Heard Sri Gundala Siva Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.2 is an Accountant in the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, presently working at Vijayawada. It is further submitted that the petitioners, including the de-facto complainant, have no personal or financial interaction or intimacy with the owners of Botal PHA Company. The petitioners further submit that the de- facto-complainant/respondent No.2 has been visiting the office of the 2nd petitioner without authorization, attempting to defame and campaign against Accused No.2. It is submitted that all the alleged offences against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. 4 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, opposes the petitions and submits that, the allegations in the complaint disclose the commission of cognizable offences and that the investigation is in progress. 5. A perusal of the FIR and the material placed on record prima facie indicates that, to elicit the truth or otherwise of the allegations made against the petitioners by respondent No.2, a thorough investigation is required. 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 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 1(2014) 8 SCC 273 5 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. 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 1(2014) 8 SCC 273 5 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 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. 6 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 investigation officer in Cr.No.06 of 2026 may proceed with the further investigation in accordance with law. The petitioners are at liberty to avail appropriate remedies as permissible under law. The alleged offence is punishable under Section 318(4) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which is punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. 12. 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 and give logical conclusion to the investigation. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO Dated 31.01.2026 KKV 2(2023) 8 SCC 632