1 APHC010115582020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1535/2020 Between: 1. BABU NAIDU @SRI B.NIRANIAN BABU,, SIO.PURUSOTHAM NAIDU, AGED ABOUT.50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST AND EX- PRESTDENT, R/O.M.M.KANDRIGA, PENUMALLAM PANCHAYAT, YERPEDU MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2. K.DINAKAR@K DINALOR RAO,, S/O.K.MUNI SUBRAMANYAM, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O.M.M.KANDRIGA, PENUMAILAM PANCHAYAT, YERPEDU MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 3. D.SUBRAMANYAM@SUBRAMANYAM NADU,, SIO.KRISHNAMA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT. 70 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O.M.M.KANDRIGA, PENUMALLAM PANCHAYAT, YERPEDU MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4. B.LAKSHMAN@B.LAKSHMAIAH,, SIO.GURUSWAMY, R/O.D.NO.1-7, M.M.KANDRIGA, PENUMALLAM PANCHAYAT, YERPEDU MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 5. P.CHALAPATHY NAIDU@P.VENKATACHALAPATHI,, S/O. JAYARAMA NAIDU, R/O.D.NO.1-42 R.V.KANDRIGA, YERPEDU MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS P.P., HIGH COURT AT NELAPADU. 2 2. R MANOHAR, S/O.R.VENKATARAMANA, AGED ABOUT. 21 YEARS, OCC. DATA ENTRY OPERATOR, R/O.RAYACHOTI TOWN, YSR KADAPA 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 Courtto quash the proceedings dated 28-02-2020 in crime no.30/2020 on the file of the SHO yerpedus registered under sections, 341,427,506 r/w 34 IPC IA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 dispenese with filing of the original certified copy of Crime No.30 of 2020, dated 28-02-2020 on the file of SHO, Yerpedu IA NO: 2 OF 2020 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 of all further proceedings in Crime No.30 of 2020, dated 28-02-2020 registered under section 341, 427, 506 r/w.34 IPC on the file of SHO, Yerpedu including arrest of the Petitioners till the disposal of the Main Quash Petition in the interest of the justice Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 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 No.1 in Crime No.30 of 2020 dated 28-02-2020 on the file of the Yerpedu, Police Station registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 341,427,506 read with 34 of the of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity, the IPC). 2. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioners. 3. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 4. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, on instructions from the Station House Officer, Yerpedu Police Station, submits that the case in Crime No.30 of 2020 on the file of Yerpedu Police Station is still under investigation, in view of there being, a stay was granted on 17.03.2020, but the said stay was only till the next date of hearing. On 21.01.2025, when the matter was listed before another learned Single Judge of this Court, no order extending the stay was passed. Again, when the matter was listed on 17.07.2025, no order extending the stay was passed. 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. 4 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Practical Solutions Inc. v. State of Telangana, Criminal Appeal No. ____ 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 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.’); 1(2014) 8 SCC 273 5 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. 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 2(2023) 8 SCC 632 6 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.30 of 2020 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 offences are punishable under Sections 341, 427 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, all of which are 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 28.01.2026 KKV