APHC010103162026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3521]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 6792/2026 Between:

1.KANCHERAL RAVI KUMAR,, S/O KANCHERAL VASANTHA RAO, AGED 29 YEARS, RESIDENT OF CHINNARAVURU VILLAGE, TENALI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

...PETITIONER AND

1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI - 522241.

2.THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ANDHRA PRADESH, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT- 522503.

3.THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, NTR DISTRICT, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH 520001.

4.THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, REDDIGUDEM POLICE STATION, NTR DISTRICT - 521215.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.BILAAL AHMED SYED Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR HOME The Court made the following:

ORDER

The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“…to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of respondent No 4 in threatening coercing harassing and in repeatedly calling the petitioner to the police station as illegal and unconstitutional direct the respondents to act strictly in accordance with law restrain them from harassing or falsely implicating the petitioner in any criminal case without due process of law provide protection tothelifeandlibertyofthepetitionerandpass…”

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader.

3. Sri Bilaal Ahmed Syed, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been unnecessarily called to the Police Station several times and subjected to harassment.

4. Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that the wife of the Petitioner has approached Respondent No.4 and lodge a complaint and the same was registered as a case in Cr.No.37 of 2026 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections

85 of ‘the BNS’ and Sections 3, 4 of ‘the D.P.Act.’

5. Upon a prima facie appraisal of the record, it is manifest that whether the implication of the petitioner is actuated by mala fides or otherwise is a matter to be adjudicated only upon culmination of investigation. The offences alleged are punishable with imprisonment not exceeding seven years. At this incipient stage, the voice of the de-facto complainant cannot be silenced by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.

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 categorically held that in a petition seeking quashment of an FIR, the High Court ought not to direct the Investigating Officer to comply with Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as such direction would amount to indirectly granting relief without a prima facie case for quashment being established.

7. Further, in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 1SpecialLeavePetition(Crl.)No.5191of2021,dated15.01.2026 the Apex Court, while interpreting the statutory scheme, has enunciated that arrest is not a mandatory exercise but a discretionary power to be exercised with circumspection. For offences punishable up to seven years, the mandate of Section 35(1)(b)(i) of ‘the BNSS’, read with the conditions in Section 35(1)(b)(ii) of ‘the BNSS’, must be satisfied. Issuance of notice under Section 35(3) of ‘the BNSS’, is the rule, and arrest is to be undertaken only when absolutely warranted. The Court emphasized that the power of arrest is an exception, not a routine measure.

8. The jurisprudence laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2(2014)8SCC273 continues to hold the field, with the objective of preventing unwarranted arrests and mechanical authorization of detention. The Court mand