Venigalla Sunil Kumar Vs The State of a P

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 Courtmaybe pleased to quash the proceedings in the FIR NO. 83/2025 of Amruthaluru police Station Bapatla district for the offences punishable under sections 329(3), 115(2), 79, 351(2) r/w 3(5) of BNS pending disposal of the main Criminal Petition and pass such

¶18

2

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶20

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 STAY all the further proceedings in the Crime No. 83/2025 of Amruthalur P.S for the alleged offences under Section 329(3), 115(2), 79, 351(2) r/w 3(5) of BNS, pending disposal of the quash petition and pass such

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

¶22

1.DANIEL PERIKALA

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.RACHAGARLA SUBBARAYUDU

¶24

2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶25

3

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 13486 of 2025

¶27

The Court made the following Order:

¶28

This Criminal Petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023, has been filed on behalf of the petitioners herein (A1 to A3) to quash the proceedings in Crime (FIR) No.83 of 2025 of Amruthalur Police Station, Bapatla District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 329(3), 115(2), 79, 351(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioners, after arguing for some time, has confined his argument to the extent of protecting the petitioners 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.

¶30

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

¶31

4

¶32

Despite of service of notice on respondent No.2, none represented on her behalf.

¶33

Heard. Perused the entire available material on record.

¶34

Since the offences alleged 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

¶35

Vs. State of Bihar and another¹ , which was reiterated in the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Md.Asfak Alam Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another² .

¶36