APHC010389962025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI ■X m THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST (% f TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT the HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI CRIMINAL PETITION NO: fi437 OF 20?/^ \\ \\ PRATAPA Between: 1. A.Krishnam Raju, S/o. Peddi Reddy, Aged about 56 Agriculture, R/o. Dinnepalle Village, Ramasamudram 2. G. Sudarshan Babu @ Babu, S/o. years, Occ; Chittoor District. G. Harinathaiah Setty, Aged about Bazar Street, Punganur, Chittoor 64 years, Occ; Agriculture, R/o. District. ...Petitioners/Accused No. 4 & 8 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi. 2. G.Muneppa, S/o. Kesappa, Aged Development Officer, Ramasamudram Mandal II Incharge, Ramasamudram Mandal, Chittoor District. rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court about 57 years, Occ: Mandal MCC Team, FST Team ...Respondents praying that in the circumstances of Criminal Petition, the High Court in CC.No. 170 of 2019 on the file of the Petition under Section 528 of BNSS stated in the Memorandum of Grounds may be pleased to call for the records Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur, Chittoor District and quash the same. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 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 stay all further proceedings in CC.No. 170 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur, Chittoor District, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: Ms. S.Parineeta, Advocate Counsel for Respondent No.1: The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Counsel for Respondent No.2: -- The Court made the following order: APHC010389962025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8437/2025 Between; 1.A. KRISHNAM RAJU, , S/0. PEDDI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC- AGRICULTURE, RAMASAMUDRAM, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. R/0. DINNEPALLE VILLAGE, 2.G. SUDARSHAN BABU @ BABU, S/0. G. HARINATHAIAH SETTY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC- AGRICULTURE STREET PUNGANUR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. R/0. BAZAR ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PUBLIC HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, PROSECUTOR AMARAVATHI. 2.G MUNEPPA, S/0. KESAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC- MANDAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, RAMASAMUDRAM MANDAL, MCC TEAM, FST TEAM II INCHARGE, RAMASAMUDRAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT{S): Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to call for the records in CC.No. 170 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur, Chittoor District and quash the same and pass lA NO: 1 OF 2025 2 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased pleased to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the charge sheet in CC.No. 170 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur, Chittoor District, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition and pass lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay all further proceedings in CC.No. 170 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur, Chittoor District, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition and Counsel for the Petitioner/accused{S): 1.S PARINEETA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR pass 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8437/2025 ORDER: The instant criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C)/under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 4 & 8, seeking quashment of the proceedings pending against them in C.C.No.170 of 2019 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur, Chittoor District for the offence under Section 188 of I PC. 2. Heard Ms. S. Parineeta, learned counsel for the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 4 & 8 and Ms. K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and acceded to 3. by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that the subject matter of this Criminal Petition is squarely covered by the Order passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.459 of 2020, dated 09.11.2023, wherein this Court held as follows. It is apt to mention that there is a statutory bar under Section 194 (1) (a) (1) Cr.P.C. to take cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC basing on the charge sheet. It is beneficial to extract Section 195 (1) (a)(1) of Cr.P.C. 10. 4 ‘Section 195(1) in The Code Of Criminal Procedure. 1973 (1) No Court shall take cognizance- (a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ), or (II) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or (Hi) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate; (b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ), namely, sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or (ii) of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under section 471, section- 475 or section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or (Hi) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub- clause (i) or sub clause (ii), except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. ” 11. ” 11. In the light of the language employed In the legal provisions referred supra, it is vivid that there is a clear bar 5 under Section 195 (1) (a) (1) of Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance of any offences punishable under Sections 172 to 188 of IRC, except on the complaint, in writing, of the Public Servant concerned or of some other Public Servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. At this juncture, it is relevant to understand what is complaint as per the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 2 (d) of Cr.P.C. is hereby extracted for quick reference: “(d) " complaint" means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report. Explanation.- A report made by a police officer in a case which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non- cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint; and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant;’’ 12. Admittedly, in the present case, without there being a complaint by the authority concerned, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC basing on a charge sheet filed by the police, which is in utter violation of Section 195 1 (a) (1) of Cr.P.C. In catena of decisions, a coordinate bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.4633 of 2023, Crl.P.No.5323 of 2009, 3670 of 2013, 8597 of 2018 and 9236 of 2018 clearly held that the Police are not empowered to investigate into the offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC and file charge sheet basing on a police report. In the case on hand, since the Court has taken cognizance of the offence based on the charge sheet filed by the Police, the procedure adopted is not in accordance with law, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner for the offence under Section 188 of IPC would amount of abuse of process of the Court. ’’ 13. 1 6 4. A perusal of the material on record would show that the Sub-Inspector of Police who registered the case under Section 188 of IPC and investigated into the said offence which is quite contrary to the provisions under Section 195(1) Cr.P.C. Since the police'officer has investigated the matter and filed charge sheet under Section 188 of IPC, learned Magistrate ought taken cognizance of the said offence. In that view and in view of the Order passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No. 459 of 2020 this Court is of the not to have dated 09.11.2023, view that, continuation of the impugned proceedings against the petitioners for the offence under Section 188 of IPC, is nothing but an abuse of process of Court. 5. In such circumstances, this criminal petition is allowed by quashing the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.4 & 8 in C.C.No.170 of 2019 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur, Chittoor District the offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code. for As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/-K TATA RAO f DEPUTY,REGISTRAR I //TRUE COPY// SEC OFFICER To, 1. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, 2. One CC to Ms. S.Parineeta, Advocate 3. Two CC’s to the Public Prosecutor, 4. Three CD Copies Punganur, Chittoor District. [OPUC] High Court of A.P. [OUT] GPC sree HIGH COURT DATED; 14/08/2025 ORDER CRLP NO. 8437 OF 2025 g 2 9 AU6 2025 f ^ . Current Section . ^ 09, ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL PETITION