APHC010325022024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5244/2024 Between: 1. DOGGA KRISHNA BHAGAVAN, S/O. LATE AKKAYYA, AGE 61 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.19-71, NEAR RAILWAY BRIDGE, PENDURTHY, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. KANDREGULA SIMHACHALAM NAIDU, S/O. LATE NOOKARAJU AGE 61 YEARS, R/O. 17-90/1 TO 12, LORDS SCHOOL, PENDURTHY, VISAKHAPATNAM 3. SARAGADAM SATYANARAYANA, S/O. LATE VENKAT RAO AGE 62 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.1-138, OLD VILLAGE, PENDURTHY, VISAKHAPATNAM 4. DOGGA GOWTHAM, S/O. KRISHNA BHAGAVAN, AGE 31 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.19-71, NEAR RAILWAY BRIDGE, PENDURTHY, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY S.H.O, PENDURTHY P.S., VISAKHAPATNAM, REP. THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HONBLE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ATAMARAVATI. 2. TELIA GOLU RAM MOHAN, , S/O,NOT KNOWN ASST. CITY PLANNER, VI ZONE, PENDURTHY, GVMC VEPAGUNTA, VISAKHAPATNAM, ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. P RAJESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4, seeking quashment of case against them in C.C.No.1169 of 2018 on the file of the Court of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam for the offence under Section 353 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code2. 2. Sri P.Rajesh Babu, learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that there are no ingredients to attract the alleged offence against the Petitioners. Learned counsel would further submit that in view of the widening of the road from Pendurthi to Visakhapatnam, the GVMC authorities proposed to demolish the houses of the Petitioners with a view to help the encroachers on the opposite side of the Petitioners’ houses. It is further submitted that, in view of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.24983 of 2010 and 3488 of 2016, the GVMC Authorities have no right to demolish the houses of the Petitioners. Learned counsel would further submit that the Petitioners are falsely implicated in the present case, though there is no prima facie case made out against them. 3. Per contra, Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the allegations in the complaint prima facie attract the offence under Section 353 of IPC against the Petitioners. There are no grounds to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners, at this stage. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 4. It is alleged against the Petitioners that, on 08.07.2016 at about 10.00 a.m., while the formation of pending BRTS road at Pendurthy Junction within the 1 for short “the Code” 2 for short “IPC” 3 limits of FMB road margin was taking up, the Petitioners herein objected the same and thereby deterred the GVMC Authorities in discharging their duties. 5. It is beneficial to extract Section 353 of IPC, which reads as follows: “353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.—Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person to the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.” 6. The language employed in the legal provision referred to supra clearly indicates that if anybody obstructs the public servant while discharging duties, the offence attracts. 7. As seen from the material placed on record, in view of the proposal to widen the BRTS road, the houses of the Petitioners were identified and marked for demolition. Further, the Composite High Court of A.P., in W.P.No.3488 of 2016 passed an interim order date 11.02.2016 suspending the proceedings in Rec.No.1676/2015, relating to the properties of the Petitioners for acquisition for the construction of BRTS Road and the same was extended until further orders. During subsistence of the said Order, the GVMC authorities tried to dispossess the Petitioners. When the Petitioners and other proposed land losers informed the officials that they would constitute contempt of court proceedings, the present complaint came to be registered. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Manik Taneja and another Vs. State of Karnataka and another3, held that a reading of the above provision under 3 (2015) 7 SCC 423 4 Section 353 IPC shows that the essential ingredients of the said offence are that the person accused of the offence should have assaulted the public servant or used criminal force with the intention to prevent or deter the public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant. 9. In the instant case, perusal of the material available on record would show that, no force was used by the Petitioners to commit such an offence. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that the Petitioners either assaulted the GVMC Authorities or used criminal force to prevent them from discharging their official duty. Taking the uncontroverted allegations, in my view, the ingredients of the offence under Section 353 IPC are not made out. When the ingredients of the offence alleged were not made out in the complaint, such criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In that view, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to exercise the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners. 10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings against the Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.1169 of 2018 on the file of the Court of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, are hereby quashed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:06.08.2025 Dinesh 5 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No.5244 OF 2024 Dated: 06.08.2025 Dinesh