IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WP(PIL) NO: 250 OF 2020 Between: Pasupuleti Ganesh, S/o. Sambaiah, Age. 37 years, R/o. H.No.9-08, Duggirala Village and Mandal, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. Aadhar No. 9914 8236 0464 PAN No. AOTPG6066P Mobile No. 98855 54949. ... PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Guntur District, at Guntur. 4. The Station House Officer, Old Guntur Police Station, Gunter Urban District, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. 5. The Central Buerau of Investigation, Rep by its Joint Director, 1-83- 21/4, MVP Double Rd, Sector 8, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh 530017. 6. The National Investigation Agency, Rep. by its Deputy Inspector General of Police, Survey No.41/14, Khanamet, Madhapur, (Hi-Tech City- JNTU Road, Hyderabad, Telangana State -500085. (R6 impleaded as respondent vide Court Orders dated.18/11/2020 in I.A. No.2 of 2020 in WP(PIL) No.250 of 2020) ... RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that id the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, a) To declare the action of Respondent No.1 in issuing G.O.Rt.No.776 Home (Legal.II) Dept., dt.12-08-2020 on the recommendation of the Respondent No. 2 for Withdrawal of Prosecutions in respect of FIR No. 132/2018, FIR No. 133/2018, FIR No. 134/2018, FIR No. 135/2018, FIR No. 136/2018 and FIR No. 137/2018 on the file of Old Guntur Police Station, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh, as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and Violation of the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and violation of provisions of Cr.P.C. and accordingly set-aside the same, b) To declare the action of Respondent No.3 and 4 in not investigating and not filing the charge sheet against the accused persons in respect of FIR No. 132/2018, FIR No. 133/2018, FIR No. 134/2018, FIR No. 135/2018, FIR No. 136/2018 and FIR No. 137/2018 on the file of Old Guntur Police Station, Guntur District, who attacked the police station and caused bleeding injuries to the police personnel and caused damage to the police station properly also public property as arbitrary, illegal and violation of principles of natural justice., c) To hand over the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation with a direction to take up the investigation in FIR No. 132/2018, FIR No. 133/2018, FIR No. 134/2018, FIR No. 135/2018, FIR No. 136/2018 FIR No. 137/2018 and complete the investigation expeditiously and to file Charge-Sheet against the Accused persons who attacked Police Station, caused injuries to the Police Personnel, damaging the police vehicles, damaging police station property. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuant to the G.O.Rt.No.776 Home (Legal.II) Dept., dt. 12-08-2020. lA NO: 3 OF 2020 Between: Pasupuleti Ganesh, S/o. Sambaiah, Age. 37 years, R/o. H.No.9-08, Duggirala Village and Mandal, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. Aadhar No. 9914 8236 0464 PAN No. AOTPG6066P Mobile No. 98855 54949. ... PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. The Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. The Superintendent of Police, Guntur District, at Guntur. The Station House Officer, Old Guntur Police Station, Gunter Urban District, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. The Central Buerau of Investigation, Rep by its Joint Director, 1-83- 21/4, MVP Double Rd, Sector 8, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh 530017. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. ...RESPONDENTS Syed Aliyas Shaik Habeeb, S/o. Mukthum Basha, Aged 28 Years, Door No.15-8-179, R/o. JH. Nagar, Guntur District, Guntur. Shaik Ayub, S/o.Shaik Subhani, Aged 42 Years, Wilding work,R/o. Door No. 18-19-21, Bara Imam Panja, Chowtra, Sangadigunta, Old Guntur, Guntur District. 6. 7. ... PROPOSED RESPONDENT Nos.6 & 7 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to implead the proposed respondents as No.6 and 7 in the writ petition (PIL) No. 250/2020 on the file of this Hon’ble court. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI J.V.PHANIDUTH Counsel for the Respondents : THE ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : SRI A. CHENNA KESHAVULU, SC FOR CBI Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : SRI P.S.P. SURESH KUMAR The Court made the following: ORDER APKC010262522020 Bench Sr.No:-7 [3483] IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WP(PIL) NO: 250 of 2020 Pasupuleti Ganesh ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Petitioner Mr. J.V.Phaniduth Advocates for Respondents Advocate General CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 26th March 2025 Per DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR. CJ: The present petition has been filed in public interest challenging G.O.Rt.No.776, Home (Legal-ll) Department, dated 12.08.2020, issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, whereby the Government decided to withdraw the prosecution against the accused who are facing trial for offences under Sections 324, 341, 353, 332, 427, 120(B), 143, 147, 506 r/w 149 IPC and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act, 1984. 2. The FIRs are registered in connection with an incident when the accused along with the mob attacked the Police Station having been infuriated in regard to the incident where a minor girl belonging to a particular community was allegedly sexually assaulted. 2 HCJ & RCJ W.P.{PIL) No.250 of 2020 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner alleges that the prosecution lodged against the accused could not have been withdrawn inasmuch as the complaints were lodged by the victims who were none other than the Police Officials, who had got injured in the aforementioned incident. By virtue of an interim order, dated 24.09.2020, the Division Bench of this Court stayed the operation of the impugned G.O. and further the respondents were directed to maintain status quo in respect of the FIRs under which the accused had been booked. 4. 5. On a perusal of the G.O. impugned, it can be seen that instructions have been issued to the Director General of Police by the Governmentto issue further instructions to the Assistant Public Prosecutors / Station House Officers concerned to file a petition under Section 321 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, before the concerned Courts in regard to the crimes in question. The stand of the respondents is that different crimes have been registered against the offenders, who had formed an unlawful assembly at old Guntur Police Station, who committed various offences under Sections 324, 341, 353, 332, 427, 120(B), 143, 147, 506 r/w 149 IPC. It is stated that majority of the people, who gathered at the Police Station, were charged with emotions and anger and few of them attacked the Police Station demanding for handing over the accused who was detained in the Police Station and had 6. 3 HCJ & RCJ W.P.(PIL) No.250of2020 been accused of committing heinous offence of rape committed on a ten year old girl belonging to a particular community. 7. Learned Advocate General appearing for the State would urge that the guidelines have already been prescribed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Kerala Vs. K. Ajith and others^ on the issue of withdrawal of prosecutions under Section 321 Cr.P.C. The relevant paragraph No.25 of the judgment in the case of K. Ajith is reproduced hereunder; 25. The principles which emerge from the decisions of this Court on the withdrawal of a prosecution under Section 321 of the Cr.P.C. can now be formulated: 25.1. Section 321 entrusts the decision to withdraw from a prosecution to the public prosecutor but the consent of the court is required for a withdrawal of the prosecution; 25.2. The public prosecutor may withdraw from a prosecution not merely on the ground of paucity of evidence but also to further the broad ends of public justice; 25.3. The public prosecutor must formulate an independent opinion before seeking the consent of the court to withdraw from the prosecution: 25.4. While the mere fact that the initiative has come from the government will not vitiate an application for withdrawal, the court must make an effort to elicit the reasons for withdrawal so as to ensure that the public prosecutor was satisfied that the withdrawal of the prosecution is necessary for good and relevant reasons; 25.5. In deciding whether to grant its consent to a withdrawal, the court exercises a judicial function but it has been described to be supervisory in nature. Before deciding whether to grant its consent the court must be satisfied that: (a) The function of the public prosecutor has not been improperly exercised or that it is not an attempt to interfere with the normal course of justice for illegitimate reasons or purposes; ^(2021) 17 see 318 4 HCJ & RCJ W.P.{PIL) No.250of2020 (b) The application has been made in good faith, in the interest of public policy and justice, and not to thwart or stifle the process of law; (c) The application does not suffer from such improprieties or illegalities as would cause manifest injustice if consent were to be given; (d) The grant of consent sub-serves the administration of justice; and (e) The permission has not been sought with an ulterior purpose unconnected with the vindication of the law which the public prosecutor is duty bound to maintain; 8. It was urged that notwithstanding the issuance of G.O. impugned it would still be open to the Public Prosecutor to formulate an independent opinion before consent of the Court was sought to withdraw the prosecution and further that even the Court had to satisfy itself fully before permitting such a withdrawal. 9. It was thus urged that there was a two layered mechanism envisaged which would ensure that only such cases of prosecution be withdrawn which would be otherwise found to have been made in good faith and in the interest of public policy and justice and not made with a view to thwart or stifle the process of law. 10. It is stated that the aforementioned views were subsequently reiterated in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay Vs. Union of India and another^, in its directions, dated 10.08.2021. ^ (2021) 20 see 599 5 HCJ & RCJ W.P.(PIL)No.250 of 2020 In view of the ratio of the aforementioned judgments and orders which have been discussed and reproduced hereinabove, we are of the opinion that it is not mandatory for the Assistant Public Prosecutors/Public Prosecutor to per se act on the directions of the Government and that before initiating any action for withdrawal of prosecution, they have to formulate independent opinion before proceeding to seek the concerned Court to withdraw from the prosecution. Such a stage, it appears, has not at all reached in the matter, as stated by the learned Advocate General, as the Public Prosecutor has not formulated any independent opinion based upon the G.O. impugned. 11. an Be that as it may, we dispose of the present petition with a direction to the Public Prosecutor to strictly proceed in accordance with the ratio of the judgment rendered in the cases of State of Kerala Vs. K. AJith and others and Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay Vs. Union of India and another. No costs. 12. Consequently, connected miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District 2. The Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Mangalagiri, Guntur District 3. The Superintendent of Police, Guntur District, at Guntur 4. The Station House Officer, Old Guntur Police Station, Gunter Urban District, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh 5. The Joint Director, Central Buerau of Investigation, 1-83-21/4, MVP Double Rd, Sector 8, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh 530017. 6. One CC to Sri J.V.Phaniduth, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to The Advocate General, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 8. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 9. One CC to Sri A.Chenna Keshavulu, SC for CBI (OPUC) 10.One CC to Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, Advocate (OPUC) 11.Three C.D. Copies. Cnr HIGH COURT DATED:26/03/2025 ORDER fKj S 0 3 AP^ 20?5 I Current Section WP(PIL).No.250 of 2020 DISPOSING OF THE WP(PIL) WITHOUT COSTS