M a Madhusudana Murthy alias aka Mallepula Madhu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

¶1

APHC010127062026

¶2

[3521]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2074/2026

¶7

Between:

¶8

M A MADHUSUDANA MURTHY ALIAS AKA MALLEPULA MADHU, S/O. M.V. ANJANEYULU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,OCC JOURNALIST, R/O. D. NO. 26-4-2954-1,BALAJI NAGAR, HINDUPUR, ANANTAPUR-515201.

¶9

D G ANANDAMURTHY, S/O. LATE D. GOVINDAPPAAGED 68 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 11-11-19,BANGALORE ROAD, HINDUPUR TOWN MANDAL,ANANTAPUR DISTRICT

¶10

D A SREEKANTH, S/O. D.G. ANANDAMURTHY,AGED 32 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 11-11-19,BANGALORE ROAD, HINDUPUR TOWN MANDAL,ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,THROUGH THE SHO, HINDUPUR I TOWN PS,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH,AMARAVATI, GUNTUR.

¶14

N NARASIMHA MURTHY, S/O. PCUANNA,AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O. MELAPURAM,HINDUPUR TOWN AND MANDAL, SATYA SAI DISTRICT

¶15

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

¶17

1.Sheikh Neha Hassan

¶18

2

¶19

2.SHEIKH NEHA HASSAN

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶21

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER :

¶23

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 Petitioners/Accused in Crime No.116 of 2024 on the file of the Hindupur I Town Police Station, Sri Satya Sai District registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 341, 506 and 109 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C’).

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner Nos.2

¶26

and 3 were not present at the scene of offence at the time of the alleged incident. Petitioner No.1 is a journalist. Petitioner No.2 is a senior citizen. Petitioner No.3, the son of petitioner No.1, is a private employee. The complainant in the instant case is a client of one K.C. Krishna Reddy, Advocate, who is involved in several civil litigations. The learned counsel further submits that the advocate of the complainant has filed various criminal complaints against the petitioners in respect of the civil litigations, which are under challenge before this Court. It is also submitted that respondent No.2,

¶27

3

¶28

under the influence of his counsel, exerted pressure on the petitioners to give up their property.

¶29

As seen from the record, the alleged offences levelled against the Petitioners/Accused are punishable with imprisonment for less than seven (07) years.

¶30

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.

¶31

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:

¶32

“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.”

¶33

Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Satender Kumar Antil v.

¶34

Central Bureau of Investigation¹ , wherein at paragraph No.33, it is held as under:

¶35

33. On the basis of the interpretation given by us, we conclude as follows:

¶36

1 Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5191 of 2021, dated 15.01.2026

¶37

4

¶38

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.

¶39

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.

¶40

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.

¶41

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.

¶42

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.

¶43

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.

¶44

Furthermore, in this regard, it is apposite to mention the Hon’ble Apex

¶45

Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar² , wherein a detailed guidelines

¶46

were issued at Para Nos.11 and 12, for arresting a person, which are being reproduced herein below:-

¶47

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:

¶48

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.‟);

¶49

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

¶50

2 (2014) 8 SCC 273

¶51

5

¶52

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;

¶53

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;

¶54

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;

¶55

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;

¶56

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.

¶57

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

¶58

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.

¶59

The similar view is also reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

¶60

Md.Asfak Alam v. the State of Jharkhand³ , which also reiterated the guidelines laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar .

¶61

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

¶62

3 (2023) 8 SCC 632

¶63

6

¶64

35(3) of ‘the B.N.S.S.,’ 2023). The petitioners are obliged to render their fullest cooperation in the ongoing investigation.

¶65

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 petitioners have committed any offence which is punishable with imprisonment beyond seven years, the investigating officer is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

¶66

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

¶67

_________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J

Date: 13.03.2026 KMS

7

80

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO