1 IH APHC010245172025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 554« of onoc B! JUNE Between: B.Vijay Kumar, S/o.Rama Rao, Inspector of Police, Intelligence Department, Eluru Zone, Eluru District aged about 44 years, Occ.Working Office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Andhra Pradesh. ...Petitioner AND 1. State, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. 2. Tatapudi Venkata Rao alias Swamy, S/o.Surayya, aged about 53 Kovvur Mandal, West State of Andhra Pradesh, High Court years, Occ:Auto Driver, R/o.Vemuluru Village Godavari District, A.P. 3. Tatapudi Padmaja, W/o.Venkata Housewife, R/o.Vemuluru District, A.P. 4. Tatapudi Veerayamma, W/o.Surayya Housewife, R/o.Vemuluru Village District, A.P. Rao, aged about 45 Village, Kovvur Mandal, West Godavari years, Occ; aged about 80 years, Occ: Kovvur Mandal, West Godavari 5. Tatapudi Jyothi, D/o.Surayya, aged about 42 R/o.Vemuluru Village, Kovvur Mandal, West Godavari District, A.P. 6, Meripe Gopi, S/o.Mahalakshmaiah Advocate, R/o.Kovvur, West Godavari District, A.P. years, Occ:Housewife, aged about 50 years, Occ: ...Respondents Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition High Court may pleased to quash the proceedings in Judgment in SC.No.299 of 2014, dated 04.03.2025 , the on the file of Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kovvur wherein the police is directed to register a case against PW6/B.ViJay Kumar under Section 211 of IPC/248 BNS and send the copy of the Judgment to the Superintendent of Police, Kovvur, East Godavari the compliance to the Court. District and shall send lA NO: 1 OF 2Q2fi Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Criminal Petition pleased to grant leave permitting the petitioner to file the the High Court may be criminal petition against the Judgment passed by Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kovvur passed in SC.No.299 of 2014 dated 04.03.2025. lA NO: 2 OF 202.4 Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the Judgment in SC.No.299 of 2014, dated 04.03.2025 on the file of Principal Assistant Sessions Judge the police is directed to register a case against PW6/B.Vijay Kumar under Section 211 of IPC/248 BNS and send the Kovvur wherein copy of the Judgment to the and shall send the Superintendent of Police, Kovvur, East Godavari District compliance to the Court, pending disposal of the petition. Counsol for the Petitioner: SRI K.BHEEMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1:ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 6:-- The Court made the following Order: 2 HN, J Crl.P.No.5548 of 2025 ORDER: Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is presently working as an Inspector of Police with the Intelligence Department. It is submitted that the petitioner had filed the charge sheet in SC.No.299 of 2014 and also deposed as PW.6 before the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kovvur. The learned Sessions Judge, while dismissing the Sessions Case, made the following observations at paragraph No.34; “34. The prosecution not only failed to prove the offence against A.1 to A.4 but also un-neccesarily the A.5 who is the reputed practicing Advocate in Kovvur Bar Association has been dragged in this case and he is attending to the Court being an accused, since 2014 onwards when the sessions case was registered, prior to that before Magistrate Court. The PW.1 with an intention to harass the A. 5 he made the name of A. 5 who is the Advocate to A. 1 to A.4 in order to create scared in the mind of Advocate, his name is also mentioned in the report, though, he is no way concern to the present crime. Having knowledge the same, he caused the charge against the A. 5 also, so it is a fit case to register the case against PW. 1 under Section I.P.C./Section 248 of B.N.S. as well as against PWs.5 and 6 who did the investigation in a negligent manner and harassing the innocent person for all these years while he stood in the place of accused which caused humiliation to him in front of his colleagues Advocates. ” 211 of s 3 HN, J Crl.P.No.5548 of 2Q25 petitioner had completed the investigation in his official capacity and discharged his duty by deposing before the Court. However, the case ended up in acquittal for various 2. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the reasons. It is submitted that the petitioner cannot be held individually responsible. A direction to file a complaint against PW.1, PW.5 and PW.6 (himself) under Section 211 of IPC is highly irrational. Therefore, learned Senior Counsel urged that the adverse remarks made by the learned Sessions Judge in paragraph Nos.34 and 38 of the judgment, directing registration of expunged from the order. a case against PW.1, PW.5, and PW.6, be 3. It is further submitted that at the judgment was directed to be Police to register paragraph No.38, a copy of sent to the Superintendent of a case against PW.5, who was also the Station House Officer, and against PW.6, the petitioner herein. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor respondent-state submitted that the remedy available. appearing for the petitioner has an alternative 5. Heard learned Senior Counsel and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor respondent-state. Perused the material available appearing for the petitioner appearing for the 1 on record. 4 HN,J Crl.P.No.5548 of 2025 In similar circumstances, the High Court for the State of 6. Telangana at Hyderabad, in a comparable case i.e., Crl.P.No.906 of 2020, held as follows in paragraph No.7; In Manish Dixit case (1 supra), the Apex Court observed as under: 7. ‘this Court has repeatedly cautioned that before any castigating remarks are made by the Court against any person, particularly when such remarks could ensue serious consequences on the future career of the person concerned, he should have been given an opportunity of being heard in the matter in respect of the proposed remarks or strictures. Such an opportunity is the basic requirement, for otherwise the offending remarks would be in violation of the principles of natural justice.... j }} In absence of any established malafides or other 7. extraneous reasons, the act of the petitioner in prosecuting the case as the investigating officer cannot be found fault and any adverse remark made without giving an adequate opportunity to the petitioner would have to be set aside. As seen from the material on record and as seen from the judgment, no such opportunity was extended to the petitioner before the learned Judge had passed the adverse remarks in the judgment. 5 HN, J Crl.P.No.5548 of 2025 Considering the submission that the petitioner, in the discharge of his bona fide statutory duties, cannot be subjected to criminal proceedings merely for performing his official functions, this Court is of the considered view that the adverse remarks made against the petitioner deserves to be expunged from the order. 8. 9. Accordingly, the adverse remarks made against the petitioner at paragraph Nos.34 and 38 of the Judgment dated 04.03.2025 passed by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kovvur, in S.C.No.299 of 2014, are hereby expunged. With the above observations, thp Criminal Petition is disposed off. 10. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- P VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Assistant District. 2. The Station House Officer, Kowgr District. 3. One CC to Sri K.Bheema Rao, Advocate 4. Two CC's to the Public Prosecutor, Amaravati [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies Sessions Judge, Kovvur, West Godavari Town Police Station, West Godavari [OPUC] High Court of Andhra Pradesh at BSV vna HIGH COURT DATED:18/06/2025 ORDER CRLP NO. 5548 OF 2025 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION