APHC010646292025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12449/2025 Between: 1.VALLABHUNI GOPI, S/O VALLABHUNI MEERAIAH,AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,R/O 11-127, PALLEPALENN,KOTHAPATNAM,ALLURUKOTHAPATNAM,ALLURU, PRAKASAM,ANDHRA PRADESH- 523286. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH,AT AMARAVATI. 2.GANGADHAR MOPIDEVI, S/O RAMU AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,R/O K.PALLEPALEM VILLAGE,KOTHAPATNAM, PRAKASAM DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.P MALLIKHARJUNA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: 2 The Criminal Petition has been filed underSection 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) seeking to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused in F.I.R.No.87 of 2025 of Kothapatnam Police Station, Prakasam District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Section 305(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3. On perusal of the record, it is seen that the alleged offences levelled against the Petitioner/Accused are punishable with imprisonment for less than seven (07) years. 4. Petitioner has submitted a representation dated 24.11.2025 to the Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District against Respondent No.2 and others that they have highhandedly attacked the Petitioner and caused bleeding injuries. That representation was not considered, therefore, the Petitioner has filed a Writ Petition for appropriate relief vide W.P.No.34812 of 2025 and the same is pending before this Court. 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.” 3 6. 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.’); 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.” 1(2014) 8 SCC 273 4 7. 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. 8. 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 is obliged to render their fullest cooperation in the ongoing investigation. 9. 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. 10. In the event that, during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer discerns the involvement of the Petitioner/Accused in any additional offences punishable with imprisonment exceeding seven years, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to initiate further proceedings in accordance with law against the Petitioner/Accused. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 23.01.2026 VTS 2(2023) 8 SCC 632