APHC010145632026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2214/2026 Between: 1. SHAIK MOHAMMED ABU BAKAR ANSARI, S/O LATE C.NOWSHAD ALI, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,R/O D.NO. 12/2-401, HARIHARA NAGAR, ANANTHAPURAM TOWN. 2. SHAIK WAHIDA BEGUM, W/O LATE NOWSHAD ALI,AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 12/2-401, HARIHARA NAGAR,ANANTHAPURAM TOWN. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, RESPRESENTED BY S.H.O,I TOWN ANANTHAPURAM P.S, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,REP. THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,STATE OF A.P., HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. SHAIK MOHAMMED SHAHID, S/O LATE C.NOWSHAD,AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 12/2-401, HARIHARA NAGAR ANANTHAPURAM TOWN. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): THANJAVURU VENKATA SUMAN Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.2214 of 2026 Dated 23.03.2026 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.30 of 2026 on the file of Ananthapuramu I Town Police Station, Ananthapuramu District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 420 and 465 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the IPC). 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor have been heard at length. The record has been meticulously perused. 3. The allegation of the de-facto complainant is that his signature was forged on an affidavit by the petitioner for the purpose of getting employment on compassionate grounds pursuant to the demise of his father. The mother of the petitioner also gave an affidavit. The petitioner got employment on compassionate basis on 04.09.2023. It is alleged that the petitioner has committed offences punishable under Sections 420 and 465 of ‘the IPC’. All the offences are punishable below seven years. 4. The complaint was not filed within a reasonable time after the petitioner got employment on compassionate grounds; however, the petitioner has filed the complaint alleging that his signature was forged for the purpose of getting 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.2214 of 2026 Dated 23.03.2026 employment on compassionate basis. Whether the petitioner has committed the offences of cheating and forgery is a matter to be determined in the course of investigation by the investigating officer. At this stage, the case of the prosecution cannot be stifled by granting a stay of further proceedings in a petition filed under Section 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C’. 5. Upon a prima facie appraisal of the record, it is manifest that whether the implication of the petitioner is actuated by mala fides or otherwise is a matter to be adjudicated only upon culmination of investigation. The offences alleged are punishable with imprisonment not exceeding seven years. At this incipient stage, the voice of the de-facto complainant cannot be silenced by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Practical Solutions Inc. v. State of Telangana, in Criminal Appeal No.353 of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Criminal) Diary No.953 of 2026), on dated 19.01.2026, has categorically held that in a petition seeking quashment of an FIR, the High Court ought not to direct the Investigating Officer to comply with Section 41-A of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ as such direction would amount to indirectly granting relief without a prima facie case for quashment being established. 7. Further, in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation1, the Apex Court, while interpreting the statutory scheme, has enunciated that arrest is not a mandatory exercise but a discretionary power 1Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5191 of 2021, dated 15.01.2026 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.2214 of 2026 Dated 23.03.2026 to be exercised with circumspection. For offences punishable up to seven years, the mandate of Section 35(1)(b)(i) of ‘the BNSS’, read with the conditions in Section 35(1)(b)(ii) of ‘the BNSS’, must be satisfied. Issuance of notice under Section 35(3) of ‘the BNSS’, is the rule, and arrest is to be undertaken only when absolutely warranted. The Court emphasized that the power of arrest is an exception, not a routine measure. 8. The jurisprudence laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar2, continues to hold the field, with the objective of preventing unwarranted arrests and mechanical authorization of detention. The Court mandated that police officers shall not automatically arrest an accused in cases under Section 498-A of ‘the I.P.C.,’ unless satisfied, upon application of the parameters under Section 41 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ that arrest is indeed necessary, that all officers must be furnished with a statutory checklist under Section 41(1)(b)(ii) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and that any arrest proposal must be accompanied by the completed checklist and the reasons necessitating such arrest. Correspondingly, the learned Magistrates must scrutinize the report and record satisfaction before authorizing detention. Decisions not to arrest must be promptly forwarded to the learned Magistrate, and notices under Section 41-A of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ should ordinarily be issued within two weeks of case registration, subject to written extensions by the Superintendent of Police. The Court further emphasized that non-compliance would attract departmental 2(2014) 8 SCC 273 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.2214 of 2026 Dated 23.03.2026 action and even contempt for errant police officials, and that learned Magistrates mechanically authorizing detention would likewise face disciplinary consequences. Importantly, the Court clarified that these safeguards extend not only to cases under Section 498-A of ‘the I.P.C.,’ or the Dowry Prohibition Act but to all offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years, thereby reinforcing a uniform jurisprudence aimed at safeguarding personal liberty. 9. The same principles were reiterated in Md.Asfak Alam v. the State of Jharkhand 3, reaffirming the binding nature of the Arnesh Kumar supra guidelines. 10. In light of the authoritative pronouncements in Satender Kumar Antil supra, Arnesh Kumar supra, and Md. Asfak Alam supra, it is incumbent upon the Investigating Officer to adhere scrupulously to the procedure prescribed under Sections 35 and 35(3) of ‘the BNSS’, (corresponding to Sections 41 and 41-A of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’). The Petitioner, in turn, is obliged to extend full cooperation to the ongoing investigation. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Investigating Officer to comply with Section 35(3) of ‘the BNSS’, and to strictly follow the guidelines enunciated in the aforementioned judgments. If the investigation reveals commission of any offence punishable with imprisonment 3 (2023) 8 SCC 632 6 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.2214 of 2026 Dated 23.03.2026 exceeding seven years, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 23.03.2026 RSI 7 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.2214 of 2026 Dated 23.03.2026 16 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.2214 of 2026 Date: 23.03.2026 RSI