Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Adhikari Kalyani vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 24 July, 2026
APHC010364652026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3521]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE 24th DAY OF JULY 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos: 5889/2026, 5891/2026, 5892/2026 & 5893/2026
Crl.P.No.5889/2026:
Between:
1. ADHIKARI KALYANI, W/O. ADHIKARI SURESH, AGED ABOUT 41
YEARS, R/O. PARVATHIPURAM PARVATHIPURAM MANDAL,
PARVATHIPURAM MANYAM DISTRICT - 535522
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.4
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by the Station House
Officer,Padmanabham Police Station,Visakhapatnam,Rep. by the Public
Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. CHERUVU CHAITANYA BHARGAVA SARMA
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Crl.P.No.5891/2026:
Between:
1. ADHIKARI DAMAYANTHI, W/O. LATE ANNESWARA RAO,AGED
ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O. PARVATHIPURAM,PARVATHIPURAM
MANDAL,PARVATHIPURAM MANYAM DISTRICT - 535522
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.2
2
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by the Station House
Officer,Padmanabham Police Station,Visakhapatnam,Rep. by the Public
Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. CHERUVU CHAITANYA BHARGAVA SARMA
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Crl.P.No.5892/2026:
Between:
1. ADHIKARI SURESH, S/O. LATE ANNESWAR RAO,AGED ABOUT 40
YEARS, R/O. PARVATHIPURAM,PARVATHIPURAM
MANDAI,PARVATHIPURAM MANYAM DISTRICT - 535522
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.3
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by the Station House
Officer,Padmanabham Poiice Station,Visakhapatnam,Rep. by the Pubiic
Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. CHERUVU CHAITANYA BHARGAVA SARMA
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Crl.P.No.5893/2026:
Between:
1. ADHIKARI SANTOSH SAGAR, S/O. LATE ANNESWAR RAO,AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O. PARVATHIPURAM,PARVATHIPURAM
3
MANDAL,PARVATHIPURAM MANYAM DISTRICT - 535522
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.1
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by the Station House
Officer,Padmanabham Police Station,Visakhapatnam,Rep. by the Public
Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. CHERUVU CHAITANYA BHARGAVA SARMA
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
COMMON ORDER:
These four Criminal Petitions are heard together and are being
disposed of by this common order, as the Petitioners in the four petitions are
different, but the crime registered against them is one and the same.
2. The Criminal Petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the
Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection
with Crime No.77 of 2026 on the file of Padmanabham Police Station,
Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, registered for the alleged offences
punishable under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for
brevity, ‘the BNS’) and Section 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for
brevity, ‘the D.P Act‘).
2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.
4
3. The case of the prosecution is that the Petitioners subjected the
de‑facto complainant to continuous harassment for dowry and additional
property demands. It is alleged that she was abused, assaulted, and driven
out of her matrimonial home, deprived of her ornaments and wedding chain. It
is further alleged that she was threatened, instigated, and mentally harassed,
even during pregnancy. As seen from the record, the alleged offences levelled
against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 are punishable with imprisonment
for less than seven (07) years.
4. The High Court of Allahabad, in Mukesh Bansal v. State of U.P1 at
paragraph Nos.48 and 49, held as under:
“48. Thus assesing the totality of the circumstances, object and the
allegation of misuse of this piece of legislation in a shape of Section 498A
IPC, the Court is proposing the safeguards after taking the guidace from
the judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Social Action Forum
for Manav Adhikar v. Union of India (Supra) keeping in view the growing
tendency in the masses to nail the husband and all family members by a
general and sweeping allegations.
49. Thus, It is directed that:–
(i) No arrest or police action to nab the named accused persons shall be
made after lodging of the FIR or complaints without concluding the
“Cooling-Period” which is two months from the lodging of the FIR or the
complaint. During this “Cooling-Period”, the matter would be immediately
referred to Family Welfare Committe(hereinafter referred to as FWC) in the
each district.
(ii) Only those cases which would be transmitted to FWC in which Section
498-A IPC along with, no injury 307 and other sections of the IPC in which
the imprisonment is less than 10 years.
(iii) After lodging of the complaint or the FIR, no action should take place
without concluding the “Cooling-Period” of two months. During this
“Cooling-Period”, the matter may be referred to Family Welfare Committee
in each districts.
(iv) Every district shall have at least one or more FWC (depending upon the
geographical size and population of that district constituted under the
District Legal Aid Services Authority) comprising of at least THREE
MEMBERS. Its constitution and function shall be reviewed periodically by
the District & Sessions Judge/Principal Judge, Family Court of that District,
who shall be the Chairperson or Co-chairperson of that district at Legal
Service Authority.
(v) The said FWC shall comprise of the following members:–
1
2022 SCC OnLine All 395
5
(a) a young mediator from the Mediation Centre of the district or young
advocate having the practices up to five years or senior most student of Vth
year, Government Law College or the State University or N.L.Us. having
good academic track record and who is public spirited young man, OR;
(b) well acclaimed and recognized social worker of that district having clean
antecedant, OR;
(c) retired judicial officers residing in or nearby district, who can devote time
for the object of the proceeding OR;
(d) educated wives of senior judicial or administrative officers of the district.
(vi) The member of the FWC shall never be called as a witness.
(vii) Every complaint or application under Section 498A IPC and other allied
sections mentioned above, be immediately referred to Family Welfare
Committee by the concerned Magistrate. After receiving the said complaint
or FIR, the Committee shall summon the contesting parties along with their
four senior elderly persons to have personal interaction and would try to
settle down the issue/misgivings between them within a period of two
months from its lodging.
The contesting parties are obliged to appear before the Committee with
their four elderly persons (maximum) to have a serious deliberation
between them with the aid of members of the Committee.
(viii) The Committee after having proper deliberations, would prepare a
vivid report and would refer to the concerned Magistrate/police authorties to
whom such complaints are being lodged after expiry of two months by
inserting all factual aspects and their opinion in the matter.
(ix) Continue deliberation before the Committee, the police officers shall
themselves to avoid any arrest or any coercive action pursuant to the
applications or complaint against the named accused persons. However,
the Investigating Officer shall continue to have a peripheral investigation
into the matter namely preparing a medical report, injury report, the
statements of witnesses.
(x) The said report given by the Committee shall be under the consideration
of I.O. or the Magistrate on its own merit and thereafter suitable action
should be taken by them as per the provision of Code of Criminal
Procedure after expiry of the “Cooling-Period” of two months.
(xi) Legal Services Aid Committee shall impart such basic training as may
be considered necessary to the members of Family Welfare Committee
from time to time(not more than one week).
(xii) Since, this is noble work to cure abrasions in the society where tempos
of the contesting parties are very high that they would melow down the heat
between them and try to resolve the misgivings and misunderstanding
between them. Since, this is a job for public at large, social work, they are
acting on a pro bono basis or basic minimum honorarium as fixed by the
District & Sessions Judge of every district.
(xiii) The investigation of such FIRs or complaint containing Section 498A
IPC and other allied sections as mentioned above, shall be investigated by
dynamic Investigating Officers whose integrity is certified after specialized
training not less than one week to handle and investigate such matrimonal
cases with utmost sincerity and transparency.
(xiv) When settlement is reached between the parties, it would be open for
the District & Sessions Judge and other senior judicial officers nominated
by him in the district to dispose of the proceedings including closing of the
criminal case.”
6
5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Shivangi Bansal v. Sahib Bansal 2 , at
paragraph No.26 held as under:
“26. The transfer petitions and special leave petitions are disposed of in
terms of the above order. The guidelines framed by the High Court of
Allahabad in the impugned judgment dated 13.06.2022 in Criminal Revision
No. 1126 of 2022 vide paras 32 to 38, with regard to ‘Constitution of Family
Welfare Committees for safeguards regarding misuse of
Section 498A, IPC shall remain in effect and be implemented by the
appropriate authorities.”
6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central
Bureau of Investigation3, wherein at paragraph No.33, it is held 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 are
available in terms of the conditions mentioned under Section
35(1)(b) of the BNSS, 2023, the arrest shall not be undertaken,
unless it absolutely warranted.
f. Power of arrest under Section 35(6) read with Section 35(1)(b)
of the BNSS, 2023, pursuant to a notice issued under Section
35(3) of the BNSS, 2023 is not a matter of routine, but an
exception, and the police officer is expected to be circumspect and
slow in exercising the said power.
7. In this regard, it is also apposite to mention the Hon’ble Apex
Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar 4, wherein a detailed guidelines
2
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1494
3
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5191 of 2021, dated 15.01.2026
4(2014) 8 SCC 273
7
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.
8
8. The similar view is also reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Md.Asfak Alam v. the State of Jharkhand 5 , which also reiterated the
guidelines laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar.
9. In the light of the law laid down in the case of Satender Kumar Antil,
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 are obliged to render their fullest
cooperation in the ongoing investigation.
10. In the result, the 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 Satender
Kumar Antil, Arnesh Kumar and MD. Asfak Alam.
As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_________________________
DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Date: 24.07.2026
PRA
5
(2023) 8 SCC 632
9
25
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos:5889, 5891, 5892 & 5893 of 2026
Date: 24.07.2026
PRA
