1. 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/Accusedin Cr.No.93 of 2026 on the file of Bhavanipuram Police Station, NTR District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 329(4), 115(2), 324(4) read with 3(5)of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’).

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor have been heard at length. The record has been meticulously perused.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and respondent No.2 are own brothers. It is further submitted that the dispute is purely civil in nature, relating to a property transaction and money, and has been wrongly turned into a criminal case. It is also submitted that the allegations of trespass, assault, and threats are false and made only to harass the petitioner. The alleged incident took place on 14.02.2026, whereas the complaint was lodged by respondent No.2 on 04.03.2026, resulting in a delay of nearly one month. Further, all the offences alleged in the FIR are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years.

4. 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.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Practical Solutions Inc. v. State of Telangana, in 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 Cr.P.C.,’ as such direction would amount to indirectly granting relief without a prima facie case for quashment being established.

6. Further, in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation(Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5191 of 2021, dated 15.01.2026), 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.

7. The jurisprudence laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar ((2014) 8 SCC 273) ,continues to hold the field, with the objective of preventing unwarranted arrests and mechanical authorization of detention. The Court mandated that police officers shall not automatically arrest an accused in cases under Section 498-A of ‘the I.P.C.,’ unless satisfied, upon application of the parameters under Section 41 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ that arrest is indeed necessary, that all officers must be furnished with a statutory checklist under Section 41(1)(b)(ii) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and that any arrest proposal must be accompanied by the completed checklist and the reasons necessitating such arrest. Correspondingly, the learned Magistrates must scrutinize the report and record satisfaction before authorizing detention. Decisions not to arrest must be promptly forwarded to the learned Magistrate, and notices under Section 41-A of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ should ordinarily be issued within two weeks of case registration, subject to written extensions by the Superintendent of Police. The Court further emphasized that non-compliance would attract departmental action and even contempt for errant police officials, and that learned Magistrates mechanically authorizing detention would likewise face disciplinary consequences. Importantly, the Court clarified that these safeguards extend not only to cases under Section 498-A of ‘the I.P.C.,’ or the Dowry Prohibition Act but to all offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years, thereby reinforcing a uniform jurisprudence aimed at safeguarding personal liberty.

8. The same principles were reiterated in Md.Asfak Alam v. the State of Jharkhand ((2023) 8 SCC 632) , reaffirming the binding nature of the Arnesh Kumar supra guidelines.

9. In light of the authoritative pronouncements in Satender Kumar Antil supra, Arnesh Kumar supra, and Md. AsfakAlam supra, it is incumbent upon the Investigating Officer to adhere scrupulously to the procedure prescribed under Sections 35 and 35(3) of ‘the BNSS’, (corresponding to Sections 41 and 41-A of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’). The Petitioner, in turn, is obliged to extend full cooperation to the ongoing investigation.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Investigating Officer to comply with Section 35(3) of ‘the BNSS’, and to strictly follow the guidelines enunciated in the aforementioned judgments. If the investigation reveals commission of any offence punishable with imprisonment exceeding seven years, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.