Inthiyaz alias Yellala Shaik Imtiaz Ahammed Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

INTHIYAZ ALIAS YELLALA SHAIK IMTIAZ AHAMMED, S/O. SHAIK SAMDANI, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 15/797, ZINNA ROAD, PRODDATUR, Y.S.R.KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶13

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶14

AND

¶15

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Amaravati.

¶16

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶17

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 Court pleased to call for the records in Cr.No.59 of 2026 on the file of the Proddatur II Town U/G Police Station, Proddatur, Y.S.R. Kadapa District, and quash the same and pass

¶18

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶19

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 to dispense with the filing the certified copies in Cr.No.59 of 2026 on the file of the Proddatur U/G Police Station, Proddatur, Y.S.R. Kadapa District, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition and pass

¶20

2

¶21

MRK,J Crl.P.No.5650 of 2026

¶22

IA NO: 2 OF 2026

¶23

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 to call for the records in Cr.No.59 of 2026 on the file of the Proddatur II Town U/G Police Station, Proddatur, Y.S.R. Kadapa District, and quash the same and pass

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶25

1.D VIGNESHWAR REDDY

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

¶27

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶28

3

¶29

MRK,J Crl.P.No.5650 of 2026

¶30

The Court made the following Order:

¶31

This Criminal Petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner herein/A15 to quash the proceedings in Crime (FIR) No.59 of 2026 of Proddatur II Town ups Police Station, YSR Kadapa District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 111(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 9(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Gaming (Amendment) Act, 2020.

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

Heard. Perused the entire available material on record.

¶35

Since the offences alleged are punishable with imprisonment of less

¶36

than seven years and in view of the no objection expressed by the Assistant

¶37

4

¶38

MRK,J Crl.P.No.5650 of 2026

¶39

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 Vs. State of Bihar and another¹ , which was reiterated in the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in

¶40

Md.Asfak Alam Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another² .

¶41