APHC010351842026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE 29th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5675 OF 2026 Between: 1. K Krishna Rao Alias Krishnagiri Rao, S/o. Late Padmanabha Rao,Aged about 73 years, Occ Retired Employee,R/o. D.No.4- 131, Ramamandiram Street, Penukonda Town, Sri Sathya Sai District - 515 110. 2. K Leelvathi, W/o. K. Krishna Rao Krishnagiri RaoAged about 69 years, Occ House wife,R/o. D.No.4-131, Ramamandiram Street,Penukonda Town, Sri Sathya Sai District - 515 110. ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, ,Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Nelapadu, Amaravati, through the Station House Officer, Penukonda P.S., Sri Sathya Sai District. 2. Harijana Mutyalappa, S/o. Sanappa, Aged about 49 years, Occ Cultivation, R/o. Door No. 2/178, R. Locherla Village,Rodam Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District - 515 701. ...Respondents 2 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 Court pleased to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 70 of 2025 dated 08.05.2025, on the file of Penukonda Police Station, Sri Sathya Sai District against the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 & 2 and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 including arrest of the Petitioners/Accused No. 1 & 2 in Crime No. 70 of 2025 dated 08.05.2025, on the file of Penukonda Police Station, Sri Sathya Sai District, pending disposal of Criminal Petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioners: K NARSI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5675 of 2026 The Court made the following Order: Instant Criminal Petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023, has been filed on behalf of the petitioners herein (A1 & A2), seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR in Crime No.70 of 2025 of Penukonda Police Station, Sri Sathya Sai District, for the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that pursuant to the Order dated 13.07.2026, he has taken notice on respondent No.2 and filed a memo of proof of service to that effect. 3. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that he has taken notice to respondent No.2. 4. Despite service of notice, none represented respondent No.2. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing for some time, has confined his argument to the extent of protecting the petitioner herein from the police on the ground that the offences alleged are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven (07) 4 years and prays this Court to direct the police to follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Substantiating the same, he relied on the Order dated 25.10.2017 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad in Rajulapati Ankababu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh1 and the Order of this Court dated 01.05.2024 in Crl.P.No.2416 of 2024 in Kandala Penchalaiah and Others Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh. 6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor did not oppose the same and concurred with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners for the reason that the offences alleged are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. 7. Heard. Perused the entire available material on record. 8. In this context it is appropriate to note the dictum held in Rajulapati Ankababu’s case, wherein the Common High Court at Hyderabad, dealt with the identical issue. For comprehensive view, the relevant portion is extracted hereunder: 1 Crl.P.No.7468 of 2011 dated 25.10.2017 5 “31. The core issue which falls for consideration at this juncture is whether the Investigating Officer has to follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 41A of Cr.P.C., while conducting investigation in respect of the offences alleged to have been committed under the provisions of the SC/ST Act. 32. The SC/ST Act came into force with effect from 30.1.1990. Section 41A of Cr.P.C., was introduced in the year 2010. The Parliament was very much aware of the provisions of the SC/ST Act at the time of introducing Section 41A of Cr.P.C., in the year 2010. Had it been the intention of the Parliament to exclude the application of Section 41A of Cr.P.C., in respect of the offences committed under the SC/ST Act, the same might have been reflected in the Cr.P.C. There is no specific provision under the SC/ST Act, excluding the application of Section 41 of Cr.P.C. The Parliament amended the provisions of the SC/ST Act, by way of Amendment Act 1 of 2016 by introducing certain provisions. The Parliament is very much aware of existence of Section 41A of Cr.P.C., at the time of making suitable amendments to the SC/ST Act. It is a settled principle of law that the provisions of Cr.P.C., are applicable to the Special Acts so far as the investigation, inquiry and trial are concerned, unless there is specific provisions under the Special Act. Even under the amended Act, there is no provision which specifically excludes the application of Section 41A of Cr.P.C., in respect of offences committed under the SC/ST Act. 6 33. Having regard to various provisions of the Cr.P.C., and the SC/ST Act referred supra, and the principle enunciated in Arnesh Kumar, I am of the considered view that Section 41A Cr.P.C., in letter and spirit, is applicable to the offences committed under the SC/ST Act if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend upto seven years, whether with or without fine.” 9. Since the offences alleged in FIR in Crime No.70 of 2025 of Penukonda Police Station, Sri Sathya Sai District are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years and in view of the no objection expressed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor, coupled with the well-settled legal principles held in Rajulapati Ankababu‘s case, this Court directs the respondent/police to follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 corresponding to Section 41A Cr.P.C., scrupulously as per the guidelines enunciated in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another2, which was reiterated in the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Satendar Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and 2 (2014) 8 SCC 273 7 Another3 in FIR in Crime No.70 of 2025 of Penukonda Police Station, Sri Sathya Sai District. 10. If it is noticed in the course of investigation that the petitioners have committed any offence which is punishable with imprisonment beyond seven years, the investigating officer is at liberty to proceed in accordance with the law. 11. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is disposed of. Interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. ____________________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 29.07.2026 PSA 3 2026 SCC OnLine SC 162 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5675 of 2026 Date: 29.07.2026 PSA