(Prayers: 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 rounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtmay be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in Cr.No.363/2025 on the file of Ananthapuramu I Town Police, Ananthapuramu District including arrest of the petitioners/accused no.3 and 4 and pass such

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 may be pleased to dispense with the filing of certified copy of FIR Copy in in Cr.No.363/2025 on the file of Ananthapuramu I Town Police, Ananthapuramu District and pass such

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 may be please to grant stay of all further proceedings in Cr. No.363/2025 on the file of Ananthapuramu I Town Police, Ananthapuramu District including arrest of the petitioners/accused no.3 & 4 and pass such

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 rounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtpleased to call for the records in Cr.No.363/2025 on the file of Ananthapuramu I Town Police Ananthapuramu District., and quash the same against petitioners/ Accused Nos. 1, 2 & 7., 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 the filing of certified copy of FIR Copy in in Cr.No.363/2025 on the file of Ananthapuramu I Town Police, Ananthapuramu District 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 please to grant stay of all further proceedings in Cr.No.363/2025 on the file of Ananthapuramu I Town Police, Ananthapuramu District including arrest of the petitioners/accused no. 1, 2 & 7 and pass

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 rounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtpleased to call for the records in Cr.No.36312025 on the file of Ananthapuramu I Town Police, Ananthapuramu District., and quash the same against petitioners/ Accused Nos. 5 & 6.,

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 the filing of certified copy of FIR Copy in in Cr.No.36312025 on the file of Ananthapuramu I Town Police, Ananthapuramu District

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 please to grant stay of all further proceedings in Cr.No.363/2025 on the file of Ananthapuramu I Town Police, Ananthapuramu District including arrest of the petitioners/accused no.5 & 6)

Common Order

1. These three Criminal Petitions are heard together and are disposed of by this common order, as they arise out of the same crime.

2. These Criminal Petitions have 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 petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 7 in Cr.No.363 of 2025 on the file of the Ananthapuramu I Town Police, Ananthapuramu District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 115(2), 74, 351(2) read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNS).

3. Heard Sri G.Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 7 and the Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.2 is the mother-in-law of Accused No.7. He further submits that all the offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. That there is an unexplained delay of fourteen (14) days in lodging the FIR by respondent No.2. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 and her two sons are residing in Australia and intermittently visit India, and therefore, the allegations are false and motivated.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, opposes the petitions and submits that, the allegations in the complaint disclose the commission of cognizable offences and that the investigation is in progress.

6. A perusal of the FIR and the material placed on record, prima facie, to elicit the truth or otherwise of the allegations against the petitioners made by the respondent No.2 requires through investigation.

               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. In the present case, this Court is not satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for quashing the FIR or the proceedings. The allegations cannot be said to be inherently improbable or absurd, nor can it be concluded at this stage that the proceedings are manifestly attended with malafide or instituted with an ulterior motive.

8. However, in this regard, it is apposite to mention the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar ((2014) 8 SCC 273), wherein a detailed guidelines were issued at Para Nos.11 and 12, for arresting a person, which are being reproduced herein below:-

               11. Our endeavor in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorize detention casually and mechanically. In order to ensure what we have observed above, we give the following direction:

               a).All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.’);

               b) All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub- clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);

               c) The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention;

               d) The Magistrate while authorizing detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorize detention;

               e) The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

               f) Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41-A of Cr.P.C be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the District for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

               g) Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, he shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction.

               h) Authorizing detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court.

               12. We hasten to add that the directions aforesaid shall not only apply to the cases under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the case in hand, but also such cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine.

9. The similar view is also reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Md. Asfak Alam v. the State of Jharkhand 2 , which also reiterated the guidelines laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar.

10. In the light of the law laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar and Md. Asfak Alam, the investigating officer is under legal obligation to proceed in accordance with law, but he shall follow the procedure prescribed under Sections 41 and 41(A) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ (now Sections 35 and 35(3) of ‘the B.N.S.S.,’ 2023). The petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 7 are obliged to render their fullest cooperation in the ongoing investigation.

11. In the result, these Criminal Petitions are disposed of directing the Investigating Officer to comply with Section 35(3) of ‘the BNSS’/41-A of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and to strictly follow the directions issued in the cases of Arnesh Kumar and MD. Asfak Alam.

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