Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Annabathula Sreenivasa Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh And on 17 February, 2026
1
APHC010081462026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3521]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1258/2026
Between:
Annabathula Sreenivasa Rao ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)
Others
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. VEERENDRANATH MADDINENI
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
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 the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused in FIR No.110 of 2025
of Penamaluru UPS, Krishna District registered for the alleged offence
punishable under Section 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for
brevity ‘the BNS’).
2
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.
3. The petitioner is working as a journalist/reporter in a daily newspaper.
There is rivalry between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. The case was
registered on 11.02.2025 based on a complaint dated 27.12.2024.
4. As seen from the record, the alleged offences levelled against the
Petitioner/Accused is punishable with imprisonment for less than seven (07)
years.
5. However, a perusal of the FIR and the material placed on record, there
exists a prima facie case to consider the request of the Petitioner under
Section 528 of ‘the BNSS’. Nonetheless, the circumstances of the case
necessitate a thorough and comprehensive investigation. The voice of the
de-facto complainant cannot be stifled at the threshold.
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 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.”
3
7. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Satender Kumar Antil v.
Central Bureau of Investigation1, 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.
8. Furthermore, in this regard, it is apposite to mention the Hon’ble Apex
Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar 2, 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 to1
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5191 of 2021, dated 15.01.2026
2
(2014) 8 SCC 273
4ensure 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.
5
9. The similar view is also reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Md.Asfak Alam v. the State of Jharkhand 3 , 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 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 petitioner is obliged to render his fullest
cooperation in the ongoing investigation.
11. In the result, the Criminal Petition is 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. 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.
As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_________________________
DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Date: 17.02.2026
KMS
3
(2023) 8 SCC 632
6
99
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1258 of 2026
Date: 17.02.2026
KMS
