Shaik Raheem Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

¶1

APHC010145682026

¶2

[3521]

¶3

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

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2228/2026

¶7

Between:

¶8

SHAIK RAHEEM, C/O. SK. S JAAN AHMEDAGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O. 54-6-1954,12TH LINE. SHOP EMPLOYES COLONY,GUNTUR, KOTHAPETA GUNTUR,ANDHRA PRADESH.- 522001.

¶9

SHAIK FAHEEM, C/O. SK. S. A. RAHIM ,AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O. 54-6-1654,12TH LINE SHOP EMPLOYEES COLONY,GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522001.

¶10

SHAIK MUNTAJ, W/O SHAIK ABDUL RAHIM,AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O. 3-29-210,RAMANUJAKUTAM, GUNTUR,PALLABHIPURAMGUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICTANDHRA PRADESH - 522001.

¶11

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI,GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522239.

¶14

SHAIK MAINAZ, D/O MUSA,AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O SRINIVASARAO PETA,NAGARAMPALEM, GUNTUR CITY,GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522004.

¶15

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

¶17

JAYA PRAKASH MADASU

¶18

2

¶19

Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.2228 of 2026 Dated 18.03.2026

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶21

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶22

The Court made the following:

¶23

ORDER :

¶24

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 proceedings against petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3in Cr.No.84 of 2026 on the file of Nagarampalem Police Station, Guntur District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 115(2) and 79 read with 3(5)of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’).

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor have been heard at length. The record has been meticulously perused.

¶26

All the offences alleged in the FIR are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. The allegation against the petitioners is that, on an earlier occasion, they agreed to conduct the marriage with respondent No.2, but later demanded additional dowry, due to which the marriage was not performed.

¶27

3

¶28

Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.2228 of 2026 Dated 18.03.2026

¶29

Upon a prima facie appraisal of the record, it is manifest that

¶30

whether the implication of the petitionersare 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 defacto complainant cannot be silenced by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.

¶31

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Practical Solutions Inc. v. State of Telangana, in 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 Cr.P.C.,’ as such direction would amount to indirectly granting relief without a prima facie case for quashment being established.

¶32

Further, in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation¹ , 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’,

¶33

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

¶34

4

¶35

Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.2228 of 2026 Dated 18.03.2026

¶36

must be satisfied. Issuance of notice under Section 35(3) of ‘the BNSS’,

¶37

is the rule, and arrest is to be undertaken only when absolutely warranted. The Court emphasized that the power of arrest is an exception, not a routine measure.

¶38

The jurisprudence laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar² ,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 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

¶39

2(2014) 8 SCC 273

¶40

5

¶41

Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.2228 of 2026 Dated 18.03.2026

¶42

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 up to seven years, thereby reinforcing a uniform jurisprudence aimed at safeguarding personal liberty.

¶43

The same principles were reiterated in Md.Asfak Alam v. the State of Jharkhand³ , reaffirming the binding nature of the Arnesh Kumar supra guidelines.

¶44

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.

¶45

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

¶46

3 (2023) 8 SCC 632

¶47

6

¶48

Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.2228 of 2026 Dated 18.03.2026

¶49

judgments. If the investigation reveals commission of any offence

¶50

punishable with imprisonment exceeding seven years, the Investigating

¶51

Officer is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.