APHC010576002025 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: 11168 OF 2025 Between: 1. RAAVURI NAAGA VASANTH KUMAR, (A3) S/O VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O H.NO. 1-91, MEDAVARIPALEM, PRATTIPADU, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, GUDIVADA II TOWN UPS, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI 1) (COMPLAINANT) (DEFACTO COMPLAINANT)2) 2. PATTAPU TEJASWI, D/O BONAM SRIDHAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESIDING AT D.NO. 2/267-A, NIZAM PET, GUDIVADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. SASI KANTH BUSI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11168 OF 2025 ORDER:- The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioner/ Accused No.3 to quash the proceedings in Crime No.135 of 2025 of Gudivada II Town Urban Police Station, Krishna District registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 351(2) read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The case of the prosecution is that Accused No.1 offered a job at Vijayawada as C.O. On that the defacto complainant sent an amount of Rs.99,000/-, Rs.1,000/-, Rs.2,19,000/- and Rs.2,56,000/- to Accused No.1 and 2 through Phonepe and Bank Account transactions. But she did not get any job and her relatives asked them many a times to return the amount. Subsequently, the Accused returned an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to her. However, the Accused did not return the remaining amount of Rs.2,75,000/- and Accused No.3 threatened her with dire consequences and cheated her by offering a job. Hence, the case was registered against the petitioner/accused. 3. Sri Busi Saskanth, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated by the police. 4. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed quash the proceedings and it is urged that the petition be dismissed. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 6. As seen from the record, the alleged offence leveled against the petitioner is punishable with imprisonment for less than seven (07) years. 7. 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.” 8. However, in this regard, it is apposite to mention the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar 1 , wherein a detailed guidelines were issued at Para Nos.11 and 12, for arresting a person, which are being reproduced herein below:- 1(2014) 8 SCC 273 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. 9. 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. 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 BNSS,’ 2023). The petitioner is obliged to render their fullest cooperation in the ongoing investigation. 11. In the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the Investigating Officer to comply with Section 35(3) of ‘the BNSS, 2023’/ 41-A of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and to strictly follow the directions issued in the cases of Arnesh Kumar and MD. Asfak Alam. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 29.01.2026 KK 2(2023) 8 SCC 632