The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS Act, praying that in the circumstances stated in the fi/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash/set as side the docket order dated: 08.09.2025 in Crime No.1247 of 2025 on the file of station House officer Vanasthalipuram police station for the offence 352,353(3) BNS and Sec. 66(d) of l.T. Act 2000 - 2008 in the interest of justice. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. VEERA BABU GANDU, Advocate for the Petitioner and [Mr. JTTHENDER RAO VERRATUALLA, the Additional Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER f"l, ,,i I i i I I THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.11921 OF 20?s ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitionei" - accused seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.1247 cf 2025 on the file of P.S Vanasthalipuram, Rachakonda District registered for the offences uncier Sections 352, 353(3) of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, (for short .BNS, 2023") and Section, 66-F ITA-2000- 2008 2, Heard the submissions of Sri Veera Babu Gandu, learned counsel fcr" the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State. 3 The iearned petitioner counsel has submitted that the Police have remanded the petitioner without following the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS even though the offences are all punishable with less than seven years of imprisonment. Since, they failed to follow the procedure, the counsel has prayed lo quash the proceedings against the petitioner. He further relied upon Poduri Ranjith Vs. Sfafe of Tetangana' decided on 18.04.2022. 'crtP.No.6o8 ol2o25 e*t ./o :i ,,..,::::-,,:::i:l,j:i}.j:Jia1xf,f:ifry]'r.1.:::::l]ji:Pffi!j:::,#M]i1.'t:,:i.:"lj,::].ffilffi;:ii1Ii;jI:.i:,:i;, 2 fiTD,J Crlp.No.l l92t 2025 4 The learned Additionar public prosecutor submitted that the Police custody has arso been granted and interrogation is completed

5. Perused the record

6. The Magistrate has passed a Remand order on 08.09.202s, even though the offences are punishable less than seven years. The Magistrate failed to observe as to whether the porice have issued notice under section 35(3) of the BNSS, without examining the record, the remand order is passed mechanically. Thus, non compliance of section 35(3) of the BNSS has to be given a serious thought by the Magistrate, while passing the orders.

7. The petitioner counsel has relied upon Ranjith's case (supra), wherein it was held that, if the remands are made solely basing on the reasons stated by the police, then the duty of the Judge is a mere ritual. The learned Judge is supposed to make a judicial scrutiny whether specific reasons have been recorded for arrest, such reasons are relevant and the police officer has reached at a reasonable conclusion that the stated reasons are attracted. B. Thus, the petitioner counsel contends that since the MagistHte has not assigned any reasons, the proceedings got I I I t & ,!: i i * 3 DTD,J Crlp.No.l l92t]025 vitiated and thus have to be quashed against the petitioner. lt is a procedural irregularity committed by the Officer and cannot be held to be an abuse of process of law.

9. Since the petition is filed for non-compliance of Section 35(3) of the BNSS, it is pertinent to refer Section 35. The same are extracted hereunder for the sake of reference:- Section 35 in Bharativa Naqarik Surakhsa Sanhita, 2023:- When police may arrest without warrant:- AAny police officer may without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant, arrest any person- (a) who commits, in the presence of a police officer, a cognizable offence; or (b) ,against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or crerlible information has been received, or a reasonable sus,:icrbn exisfs that he has committed a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less thatt seven years or which may extend to seven years whether with or without fine, if the following conditions are sati.sfied, namely:- (i) the police officer has reason to believe on the basr's of such contplaint, information, or suspicion that such person has contmitted the said offence; (ii) lhe police officeris safisfied that such arrest rs necessary- (a) to prevent such person from committing any fufther offence; or (b) for proper investigation of the offence; or (c) to prevent such person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tampering with such evidence in any matlner; or (d) to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as fo dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the police officer; or (e) as unless such person is arrested, his presence in the - Couri whenever required cannot be ensured,and the police ',.^-..."*:;;..;..*,.-;.-,,:.::;;;i:,;^:Y;;::::s. {$ffiffi8q.:r;,'.,:i .t.,:, .. i .:.:.:. j.ii:;:,; :,,:.- .-*;lIjr "l:*.i-.]-;:i5& 4 crtp.No. I t s2 tE ):nP;:i officer shall record while making such arrest, his reasons in writing:Provided that a police officer shall, in a/l cases where the arrest of a person is not required under the provisions of fhr's sub-section, record the reasons in writing for not making the arrest; or (c) against whom credibte information has been received that he has committed a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to more than seven years whether with or without fine or with death sentence and the police officer has reason to betieve on the basis of that information that such perso n has committed the said offence; or (d) who has been proclaimed as an offender either under this Sanhita or by order of the Sfafe Gove rnment; or (e) in whose possession anything is found which may reasonably be suspecf ed to be stolen propefty and who may reasonably be suspecf ed of having committed an offence wiin reference to such thing; or (f) who obsfructs a potice officer while in the execution of his duty, or who has escaped, or attempts to escape, from lawful (g) who is reasonably suspected of being a deserter from any of the Armed Forces of the tJnion; or (h) who has been concerned in, or against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonabre suspicion exists, of his having been concerned in, any act committed at any place out of lndia which, if committed in tndie, would haie'been punishable as an offence, and for which he is, under any law relating to extradition, or othenuise, liable to be apprehended or detained in custody in lndia; or (i) .who, being a released convict, commits a breach of any rule made under sub.section (S) of section 3g4; or (i) tor whose arrest any requisition, whether written or orar, has been received from another police officer, provided that the requisition specifies the person to be arrested and the offence or other cause for which the arrest r.s fo be made and it appears therefrom that the person might lawfully be arrested without a warrant by the officer who issuel tne requisition. (!)Subject to the provisions of section 39, no person concerned in a non-cognizable offence or against whom a -/ ' -',-.1i. ;lttrl j.t' a.:.:)t. :: r .i:.; :: t".- - : f, ETD,J Crlp.No.l l92l 2025 cornplaint has been made or credible information has been received or reasonable suspicion exlsfs of his having so concerned, shall be arrested except under a warrant or order of a Magistrate {$he police officer shall, in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under sub-secfion (1) r.ssue a notice directing the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credibte information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exlsfs that he has committed a cognizable offence, to appear before him or at such other place as may be specified in the notice. (!)Where such a notice r's issued to any person, it shatt be the duty of that person to compty with the terms of the notice. (!)Where such person complies and continues to compty with the notice, he shall not be arrested in respect of the'offence referred to in the notice unless, for reasons to be recorded, the police officer is of the opinion that he ought to be arrested. {9)Where such person, at any time, faits to comply with the ternts of the notice or is unwilling to identify himsetf, the potice officer may, subject to such orders as may have been passed by a competent court in this behatf, arrest him for the offence mentioned in the notice. Q)No arrest shall be made without prior permrssion of an officer not below the rank of Deputy superintendent of police in case of an offence which is punishable for imprisonment of less fhan three years and such person is infirm or is above sixty' years of age.

10. The Section itself makes it clear that the Police Officer has to assign reasons for arrest and wherever the arrest is not essentia! he is required to issue notice under section 35(3) of the BNSS. Thus. a duty is cast upon a tVlagistrate to check whether any specific reasons are assigned for the arrest. on examining the same, in case if 3s(3) of the BNSS it is not complied with, the officer has to assign reasons while Femanding the accused. rn the present case, it is borne out by ,*3" 6 EI'D,J Crlp.No.l l92l_2025 the remand report that the accused person was previously involved in several crimes registered at police station, vanasthalipuram vide Cr.Nos. 1gBt2O24, lJls.44l, 427', 506 rlw 34 lpc, 2\ Crime No.920/2025, U/sec.74,79,115(2),352, 351 (2) rtw 3(5) BNS of pS Vanasthalipuram and also the accused recenfly continuously repeated the offences involved in 3) cr.No.126st2o2s U/s 308(3), 352, 353(2) BNS, 4) Cr.No.126812025 U/s 352, 353(2) BNS, 5) cr.No.127812025 U/s 353(2),3s2 BNS. Thus, he is shown to be a habitual offender

11. The allegations in the present complaint are that he is posting messages on whatsapp gr6ups with an intention to create and provoke differences between two groups. lt is alleged that he is posting the said messages with a criminal intention to defame the public authorities. Thus, the officer should have observed that the notice under section 35(3) of BNSS was not issued by the police and should have assigned reasons for his remand accordingly. without assigning these reasons, the officer has failed to follow the said procedure. Thus, there is irregularity in the procedure, but the same cannot be treated as abuse of process of law. Hence, it cannot be held to be a ground to quash the proceedings. The investigation , II I j 1 'l I i ; $ I I ,r "i".t_{'Si',ii.hai' -:-r ;1.,. j:. +Er:- ' ' .;.., 7 ETD,J Crlp.No. I l92l_2025 is still in progress. Therefore, the present petition cannot be - entertained and same is liable to be dismissed.

12. ln the result, the Criminai Petition is dismissed

13. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed To, Sd/- A. PRATHIMA REG /TRUE COPY// i N OFFICER Ranga ReddY District.

1. The Vil - Additional tMetropolitan fr4agistrate cybera 2. The Station iour" Officer, Vanasthalipuram Police Station, Rachakonda Dist' 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of TS at Hyderabad' (OUT) 4. one CC to tVlr. VEERA BABU GANDU, Advocate IOPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies at Hayathnagar, RClkam YY HIGH COURT DATEDi 1710912025 ORDER CRLP.No.11921 of 2025 {rrhtr ) ) $ E lr8', zffi ., SPA Tr. * The Criminal Petition is Dismissed. g.uf& 2 Yr@€