APHC010654532025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3521]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 943/2026 Between:

K . DIVYAMARAM, W/O K. MUNIRATNAM REDDY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,2-95,GANGULAPALLI VILLAGE DORNAKAMBALA POST CHANDRAGIRI MANDAL ,CHITTOOOR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND

1. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP ITS BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI

2. J EELAKARRA MUNEEDRA BABU, S/O G. SUBRAMANYAM AGE 56 YEARS, 14-01-105, NEHRU STREET, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

GANTA EDIGA RAKESH GOUD Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 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 proceedings against petitioner/Accused No.2 in Cr.No.425 of 2025 on the file of the Tirupati Rural Police Station, Tirupati District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 318(4) read with 3(5) 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. As seen from the record, the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 shows that there is, ex facie, a civil dispute pending between the petitioner and respondent No.2. The petitioner had offered to sell a plot to respondent No.2, which was later cancelled by respondent No.2 himself. The alleged offences levelled against the petitioner/Accused No.2 are punishable with imprisonment for less than seven (07) years. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner confined his relief under Section 35(3) of ‘the BNSS’.

4. 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.

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.”

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation¹, 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 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