Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Meeram Sahib Gari Jeelani vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 16 March, 2026
APHC010137322026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3521]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2102/2026
Between:
1. MEERAM SAHIB GARI JEELANI, S/O M MAHABOOB HUSSAIN,
AGEDABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O D. NO. 2-249-1, PEDDASETTIPALLI
VILLAGE,PRODDUTUR MANDAL, CUDDAPAH, AP - 516360.
2. SHAIK MEERAM SAHIB GARIMUMTAJ BEGUM, W/O M
MAHABOOBHUSSAIN, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O D. NO. 2-249-
1,PEDDASETTIPALLI VILLAGE, PRODDUTUR MANDAL,
CUDDAPAH, AP -516360.
3. SHAIK MEERAM SAHIB GARI MAHABOOB HUSSAIN, S/O M
MAHABOOBHUSSAIN, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/O D. NO. 2-249-
1,PEDDASETTIPALLI VILLAGE, PRODDUTUR MANDAL,
CUDDAPAH, AP -516360.
4. SHAIK MEERAM SAHIB GARI MOULALI, S/O M MAHABOOB
HUSSAIN,AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O PATAMATA, VIJAYAWADA,
AP - 520010.
5. MEERAM SAHIB GARI AYESHA, D/O M MAHABOOB HUSSAIN,
AGEDABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O D. NO. 2-249-1, PEDDASETTIPALLI
VILLAGE,PRODDUTUR MANDAL, CUDDAPAH, AP - 516360.
6. MMEERAMODDIN, S/O M GAIBUSHAB, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/O D.NO. 36-A-67, PAPIREDDYNAGAR, JAGATGIRIGUTTA,
QUTHUBULLAPUR,RANGAREDDY, AP - 500037.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
2
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR,HIGHCOURT OF A.P. AMARAVATI, GUNTUR
DISTRICT, AP THROUGH THESHO, GOVERNORPET POLICE
STATION, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT.
2. SHAIKRUMANA FARIYAL, W/O MEERAM SAHEB GARI JILANI,
AGED 29YEARS, R/O OF D.NO. 27-32-9, 2 FLOOR, SRINIVASA
COMPLEX, NEARANSARI PARK, GOVERNORPET, VIJAYAWADA.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. CHINTA NAGA SUMANTH
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. CHALLA AJAY KUMAR
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The Criminal Petition, instituted under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter, ‘the BNSS’), seeks invocation of the inherent
jurisdiction of this Court for quashment of proceedings in Crime No.16 of 2026
registered at Governorpet Police Station, NTR Commissionerate against the
Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6 for alleged offences punishable under Sections 85,
115(2), 318(2) and 351(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
(hereinafter, ‘the BNS’).
2. The learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor have been heard at length. The record has been meticulously perused.
3. On perusal of the record, it is alleged that the Petitioner No.1 neglected, abused,
and harassed Respondent No.2 both mentally and physically. She later discovered
3
that Petitioner No.1 is a eunuch, and upon questioning him, she was
assaulted.
4. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Station House
Officer has been summoning Petitioner No.1 to the Police Station and insisting
to submit a written statement declaring that he is incapable of coitus.
5. 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 Committee (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:–
(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;
1
2022 SCC OnLine All 395
4
(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. 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 Family2
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1494
5Welfare Committees for safeguards regarding misuse of
Section 498A, IPC shall remain in effect and be implemented by the
appropriate authorities.”
7. Upon a prima facie appraisal of the record, it is manifest that whether
the implication of the petitioners 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.
8. 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 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 Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, ‘the Cr.P.C.,’), as such direction would amount
to indirectly granting relief without a prima facie case for quashment being
established.
9. Further, in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of
Investigation3, 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
3
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5191 of 2021, dated 15.01.2026
6
undertaken only when absolutely warranted. The Court emphasized that the
power of arrest is an exception, not a routine measure.
10. The jurisprudence laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar 4 ,
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 Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter, ‘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
4
(2014) 8 SCC 273
7
up to seven years, thereby reinforcing a uniform jurisprudence aimed at
safeguarding personal liberty.
11. The same principles were reiterated in Md.Asfak Alam v. the State of
Jharkhand 5 , reaffirming the binding nature of the Arnesh Kumar supra
guidelines.
12. In light of the authoritative pronouncements in Satender Kumar Antil
supra, Arnesh Kumar supra, and Md. Asfak Alam 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 Petitioners, in turn, are obliged to
extend full cooperation to the ongoing investigation.
13. 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.
_________________________
DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Date: 16.03.2026
PRA
5
(2023) 8 SCC 632
8
149
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2102 of 2026
Date: 16.03.2026
PRA
