APHC010698552025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 13535/2025 Between: 1. GUNDA MURALI KRISHNA, S/O NARAYANA,AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,R/O D.NO. 1-820, STALIN NAGAR,ANANTHAPURAMUTOWN,ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT, AP ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATIGUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. BINDELA SRIDEVI, W/O B. CHENNA REDDY,R/O D.NO.6-4-215-1, 3RD ROAD,ANANTHAPURAMU TOWN, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICTANDHRA PRADESH ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. YASWANTH GADE Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. VENKATA MOHAN RAO PATHAKOTA 2 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3. LEGAL AID The Court made the following: ORDER: 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 Petitioner/Accused No.2 in C.C.No.654 of 2023 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ananthapuramu. 2. Notice to Respondent No.2 was sent, and a memo to that effect has been filed. There is no representation for Respondent No.2. Hence, a learned legal aid counsel is appointed to argue the case on behalf of Respondent No.2, for the ends of justice for not causing any prejudice to Respondent No.2. Hence, Mr.Venkata Mohan Rao, learned counsel, is appointed as learned legal aid counsel for Respondent No.2 in this case. The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, is directed to issue necessary proceedings in this regard. 3. Heard learned counsel for Petitioners, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned legal aid counsel for Respondent No.2. Perused the record. 4. Mr. G. Yaswanth, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the FIR and charge sheet do not attribute any specific act or utterance to Accused 3 No.2, though they allege that Accused No.1 abused the former Chief Minister at a press meet, showed chappals, and made remarks about his late father and grandfather. The FIR was lodged belatedly, four days after the alleged incident, reflecting mala fides and vendetta rather than genuine public order concerns. The charge sheet merely groups Accused Nos.1 to 3 collectively without distinct attribution to Accused No.2. Continuation of proceedings under Section 153-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, ‘the I.P.C.,’) would amount to abuse of process and harassment, especially since the Petitioner has cooperated fully with investigation and prosecution serves no legitimate purpose of law enforcement. 5. Per contra, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submits that the FIR allegations, taken at face value, disclose a cognizable offence since abusive remarks and the act of showing chappals towards the former Chief Minister, along with derogatory references to his late father and grandfather, were made in a public press meet and circulated widely on social media. The delay of four days in lodging the complaint is explained as arising from consultation and collection of material before approaching the police. The charge sheet has rightly arrayed Accused No.2 along with others, as their collective conduct at the press meet attracts Section 153-A of ‘the I.P.C’. Hence, the proceedings are a legitimate exercise of law enforcement intended to preserve public peace and dignity of constitutional functionaries. 4 6. Mr. Venkata Mohan Rao, learned legal aid counsel for Respondent No.2, argued on the same lines as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposing the quash petition. 7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 8. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.654 of 2023 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ananthapuramu are liable to be quashed in exercise of the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of „the Cr.P.C.,‟/Section 528 of „the BNSS‟?” 9. On careful perusal of the record, it is observed that Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 21.05.2023 with the police. The said complaint was registered as a case in Crime No.83 of 2023 for the alleged offence punishable under Section 153-A read with Section 34 of ‘the I.P.C.’, not only against the Petitioner/Accused No.2 but also against two other accused persons. After investigation, the Respondent Police filed a charge sheet against the Petitioner and the two other accused. 10. In the complaint of the Respondent No.2, she alleged that the Petitioner along with others had conducted a press meet against the former Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh. During the said press meet, they made inappropriate remarks against a constitutional authority. Furthermore, they displayed slippers in their hands and stated that they would beat those persons who used certain objectionable comments against their leader. 5 11. Section 153 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ lays down as under: “153-A. Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.— (1)Whoever— (a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, or (b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity, or (c) organizes any exercise, movement, drill or other similar activity intending that the participants in such activity shall use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, or participates in such activity intending to use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, against any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community and such activity for any reason whatsoever causes or is likely to cause fear or alarm or a feeling of insecurity amongst members of such religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. Offence committed in place of worship, etc.— (2)Whoever commits an offence specified in sub-section (1) in any place of worship or in any assembly engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.” 12. On a careful reading of the averments in the complaint, it is evident that the allegations do not promote any enmity between different groups on the grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, or language. The alleged acts do not, in any manner, prejudice the maintenance of harmony. 13. Apart from that, it is pertinent to note that Section 153-A of ‘the I.P.C.,’ is a non‑cognizable offence. Even though Section 153-A of ‘the I.P.C.,’ is 6 treated as cognizable, there exists a statutory rider under Section 196 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ regarding the taking of cognizance. 14. Section 196 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ mandates that, before cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 153-A of ‘the I.P.C.,’ can be taken, the previous sanction of the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, is required. 15. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon the Judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka in Rajasingh Takur v. State of Karnataka1, wherein at paragraph No.10 of the said judgment, it was held that the Court cannot take cognizance of the offence unless prior sanction is accorded by the Government concerned. 16. In the present case, it is indisputable that no sanction has been granted by the State Government for the prosecution of the Petitioners for the alleged offence punishable under Section 153-A of ‘the I.P.C.’ 17. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition deserves to be allowed on two grounds: Firstly, there was no previous sanction granted by the Government before the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate took cognizance of the offence; Secondly, and more importantly, the grievance raised in the complaint of Respondent No.2 does not attract the ingredients of Section 153-A of ‘the I.P.C’. 1 Crl.P.No.2576 of 2023, dated 06.10.2023 7 18. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings in C.C.No.654 of 2023 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ananthapuramu, are hereby quashed against Petitioner/Accused No.2. 19. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 01.05.2026 PRA 8 167 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.13535 of 2025 Date:01.05.2026 PRA