APHC010090932026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3521]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1440/2026 Between:

Annaladasu Prasad, and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

AND Annaladasu Persi and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

1. I V N RAJU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

2.

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 the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4 in Crime No.13 of 2026 on the file of the Nadendla Police Station, Palnadu District registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 85, 74, 75(1), 79, 115(2) and 351(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’).

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

3. The petitioners/Accused Nos. 3 and 4 are wife and husband. They are cousins of Accused No. 1. The allegations against them are bald and omnibus. Prima facie, no case is made out against them; nevertheless, investigation is required.

4. As seen from the record, the alleged offences levelled against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4 are punishable with imprisonment for less than seven (07) years.

5. However, a perusal of the FIR and the material placed on record, there exists 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 Investigation¹, wherein at paragraph No.33, it is held 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 Section 35(1)(b)(ii) of the BNSS, 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 Section 35(1)(b) of the BNSS, 2023, pursuant to a notice issued under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023 is not a matter of routine, but an