The court affirmed that arrests for minor offences must follow specific legal procedures, emphasizing a thorough investigation and notification requirements under applicable law.

ORDER :

Y. Lakshmana Rao, J.

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 BNS S ’) seeking to quash proceedings against petitioner/Accused in Cr.No.180 of 2025 on the file of the Yerpedu Police Station, Tirupati District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the ’).

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

3. Issuance of notice to respondent No.2 is not required, inasmuch as the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks a direction for issuance of notice under Section 41 -A of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’/ Section 35 (3) of ‘the BNSS ’, as all the alleged offences levelled against the petitioner/Accused are punishable with imprisonment for less than seven (7) years.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are disputes between the petitioner and the de-facto complainant, and that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the petitioner and the de-facto complainant/respondent No.2 were previously working under the same employer.

5. However, on a perusal of the FIR and the material placed on record, there is a prima facie case to consider the request of the petitioner under Section 528 of ‘the BNSS ’. Nonetheless, the circumstances of the case necessitate a thorough and comprehensive investigation. The voice of the de-facto complainant cannot be stifled at the threshold.

6. 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.”

7. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation , Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5191 of 2021, dated 15.01.2026, has held at paragraph No.33 as under:

33. On the basis of the interpretation given by us, we conclude as follows:

a. An arrest by a police officer is a mere statutory discretion which facilitates him to conduct proper investigation, in the form of collection of evidence and, therefore, shall not be termed as mandatory.

b. Consequently, the police officer shall ask himself the question as to whether an arrest is a necessity or not, before undertaking the said exercise.

c. For effecting an arrest, qua an offence punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years, the mandate of Section 35 (1)(b)(i) of the BNSS , 2023 along with any one of the conditions mentioned in (1)(b)(ii) of the , 2023 must be in existence.

d. A notice under Section 35 (3) of the BNSS , 2023 to an accused or any individual concerned, qua offences punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years, is the rule.

e. Even if the circumstances warranting an arrest of a person are available in terms of the conditions mentioned under Section 35 (1)(b) of the BNSS , 2023, the arrest shall not be undertaken, unless it absolutely warranted.

f. Power of arrest under Section 35 (6) read with (1)(b) of the BNSS , 2023,