APHC010045742026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 779/2026 Between: 1. SRI ALLA GURAVA REDDY, S/O. A.SITA RAMI REDDY,HINDU, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC FARMER, 2. SRI ALLA SANDEEP REDDY, S/O, SRI ALLA GURAVA REDDY,HINDU, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, (PETITIONER NO 1 AND 2 RESIDENTS OF DOOR NO.2-23, PRODDUTURUVILLAGE, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP .BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF AP, AT AMARAVATHI. 2. SRI CHALASANI NAGESWARA RAO, S/O. C.VEERA RAGHAVA RAO,AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO.63-2- 30,FLATNO.TF-1, SAI DURGA TOWERS, PATAMATALANKA,VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): SRINIVAS BASAVA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.779 of 2026 Dated 03.02.2026 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 proceedings against petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 in Cr.No.249 of 2025 on the file of the Kankipadu Police Station, Krishna District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 329(3), 324(4) and 351(2) read with 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 petitioner is aged about 65 years. He filed a suit in O.S.No.196 of 2012 against one Padamata Suresh Babu, and the said suit was decreed on 11.03.2015 by the learned XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. Respondent No.2 claims that he has purchased the property from the defendant in the above-mentioned suit. The alleged offences levelled against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 are punishable with imprisonment for less than seven (07) years. 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.779 of 2026 Dated 03.02.2026 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.2 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 1(2014) 8 SCC 273 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.779 of 2026 Dated 03.02.2026 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.779 of 2026 Dated 03.02.2026 8. The similar view is also reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Md. Asfak Alam v. the State of Jharkhand2, 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: 03.02.2026 RSI 2(2023) 8 SCC 632 6 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.779 of 2026 Dated 03.02.2026 54 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.779 of 2026 Date: 03.02.2026 RSI