logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 APHC 1441 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Case No : Criminal Petition No. 5591 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
Parties : Arava Bhanubee Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh & Another
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Ramalakshmana Reddy Sanepalli, Advocate. For the Respondents: Public Prosecutor.
Date of Judgment : 06-08-2026
Head Note :-
Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to call for the records in crime No 345 of 2024 on the file of Bhogapuram Police Station, Vizianagaram and quash the same the Petitioner/Accused No. 1 and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased pleased to dispense with filing of the original certified copy in F.I.R No. 345 of 2024, dated 10.11.2024, On the file of the Bhogapuram Police Station, Vizianagaram District before this Hon’ble Court and pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2026

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay all further proceedings in crime No. 345 of 2024 on the file of Bhogapuram Police Station, Vizianagaram and pass)

1. Instant Criminal Petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023, has been filed on behalf of the petitioner herein (A1), seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR in Crime No.345 of 2024 of Bhogapuram Police Station, Vizianagaram District, for the offences punishable under Section 196(1), 336(1), 352, 353(2) and 356(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 and Section 66 read with 43 & 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000-2008.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the Order dated 15.07.2026, he has taken notice on respondent No.2 and filed a memo of proof of service to that effect.

3. Despite service of notice, none represented respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing for some time, has confined his argument to the extent of protecting the petitioner herein from the police on the ground that the offences alleged are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven (07) years and prays this Court to direct the police to follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor did not oppose the same and concurred with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner for the reason that the offences alleged are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years.

6. Heard. Perused the entire available material on record.

7. Since the offences alleged in FIR in Crime No.345 of 2024 of Bhogapuram Police Station, Vizianagaram District are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years and in view of the no objection expressed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor, this Court directs the respondent/police to follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 corresponding to Section 41A Cr.P.C., scrupulously as per the guidelines enunciated in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another ((2014) 8 SCC 273), which was reiterated in the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Satendar Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another (2026 SCC OnLine SC 162) in FIR in Crime No.345 of 2024 of Bhogapuram Police Station, Vizianagaram District.

8. If it is noticed in the course of investigation that the petitioner has committed any offence which is punishable with imprisonment beyond seven years, the investigating officer is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

9. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is disposed of.

Interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal