' % IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY. THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5273 OF 2025 Between: Morisetty Ravi, S/o Morisetty Sankar Narayana, Aged about Karepalli Village, Singareni Mandal, Khammam District, Telangana Presently residing at villa E7, NVT Arcot, Vaksana, Sarjapura, Banglore. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED 50 years, R/o State. AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P at Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT 2. Baireddy Kshatrapathi Reddy, S/o Padmanabha Reddy, R/o 76/100-3-3-P-145, Gopi Nagar, Kurnool Town, Andhra Pradesh - 518002. H.No- ...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 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 FIR No. 380 of 2024 dated 12.11.2024 on the file Kurnool IV Town PS, Kurnool, Kurnool District., pending disposal of the Criminal Petition. I.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS & U/s 482 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to stay of investigation including the arrest of the petitioner in connection with FIR No. 380 of 2024 dated 12.11.2024 on the file Kurnool IV Town PS, Kurnool, Kurnool District pending disposal of the Criminal Petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T NAGARJUNA REDDY ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (AP) on behalf of the Respondent No.1. The Court made the following ORDER : APHC010253S5202S IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 13457] THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5273/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED Morisetty Ravi AND ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Ttie State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.T NAGARJUNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is 2. falsely implicated in Crime No. 380 of 2024 on the file of Kurnool IV Town Police Station, Kurnool District, for the alleged offences under Sections 308(2), 351(3), 353(1) r/w 3(5) of the BNS and Section 66-E of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 2 3. It is submitted that the 2"'* respondent’s brother and the petitioner had some financial transactions during the stay of the petitioner in the U.S.A. during the years 2016-19. It is also submitted that Crime No. 170 of 2020 filed, and the petitioner is facing trial after the police filed the charge sheet. A similar complaint is now filed by the 2"^^ respondent, alleging various offences. Now, the 2"'^ respondent has invented a new theory of the petitioner trying to extract money from the 2"*^ respondent under the guise of posting a video relating to the brother of the 2"'^ respondent. It is submitted that the transaction between the petitioner and the 2"'* respondent’s brother took place in the U.S.A., and the petitioner had no reason to file a false complaint implicating the petitioner in various offences. was The learned counsel for the petitioner also relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of the State of Telangana in the matter of Sridhar Jyothi vs. State of telangana and another\ which held that: 4. “TUI completion of investigation and filing of final report, the Investigating Officer is further directed not to arrest the petitioners herein. However, it is made clear that the petitioners shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer by furnishing the information and documents as sought by him in concluding the investigation”. 5. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner also faced the allegations in the State of U.S.A. and was also punished with imprisonment: thereafter, he came back to India. ^ AIR Online 2021 Tel 135 3 6. Be that as it may, the Station House Officer, Kurnool IV Town Police Station, Kurnool District, is directed to complete the investigation by strictly complying with the provisions of Section 35(3) of the BNSS, and also duly taking into consideration the explanation submitted by the petitioner. This shall not preclude the investigating officer from filing the final report/charge sheet. 7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is disposed off. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Station House Officer Kurnool IV Town PS, Kurnool, Kurnool District 2. One CC to Sri. T Nagarjuna Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P Amaravati [OUT] 4. Three CD Copies SD vna HIGH COURT DATED:08/05/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.5273 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION