IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THURSDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NOs. 7446 and 7206 OF 2022 CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7446 OF 2022 Between: 1. Manchu Mohan Babu, Aged about 75 years, S/0 M.Narayana Swamy Naidu, Occ Chairperson, Sri Vidyaniketan Educational Institutions, R/o Plot No 6, Road No 1, Film Nagar, Jublee Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana State 2. Manchu Vishnu Vardhan Babu, Aged about 43 years, S/0 Manchu Mohan Babu, Occ CEO, Sri Vidyaniketan Educational Institutions, R/o Plot No 6, Road No 1, Film Nagar, Jublee Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana State. 3. Manchu Manoj Kumar, Aged about 39 years, S/0 Manchu Mohan Babu, Occ CEO, Sri Vidyaniketan Educational Institutions R/o Plot No 6, Road No 1, Film Nagar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana State. ...Petitioner/Accused Nos. 1 to 3 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by S.H.O, Chandragiri P.S., Tirupati Urban, Rep. Through the Public Prosecutor, State of Andhra Pradesh, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. 2. K. Hemalatha, Aged about 49 years, Occ Mandal Parishad Development Officer, MCC Team -IV, Mandal Praja Parishad, Chandragiri, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondents/Complainant that in the Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the C.C.No.1015 of 2021, on the file of the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh. LA. NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 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 to grant stay of all further proceedings, including presence/ appearance of the Petitioner herein in C.C.No.1015 of 2021, on the file of the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition. CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7206 OF 2022 Between: 1. K.Thulasi Naidu, Aged about 53 years, S/o Late Chinnamma Naidu, 10-56-6, R/o Occ Administrative Officer, Sri Vidyaniketan SreeSainadhaNagar, Arepalle, Rangampet, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh 517102. 2. Raavuru Satheesh, Aged about 35 years, Occ Public Relations Officer, Sri Vidyaniketan, R/o Perimidi Post, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh 524421. ...Petitioner/Accused Nos. 4& 5 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by S.H.O, Chandragiri P.S., Tirupati Urban, Rep. Through the Public Prosecutor, State of Andhra Pradesh, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. Occ Mandal Parishad Mandal Praja Parishad, 2. K. Hemalatha, Aged about 49 years Development Officer, MCC Team Chandragiri, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh. -IV, ...Respondents/Complainant that in the Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, Quash the C.C.No.1015 of 2021, on the Petition under circumstances stated in the the High Court may be pleased to file of the IV Additional Junior interest of equity and justice while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Civil Judge, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh, in the Section 482 of Cr.P.C. I A. NO: 2 OF 2022 that in the Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition Petition under circumstances stated in the the High court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings, of the Petitioner herein in C.C.No.1015 of including presence/ appearance 2021, on the file of the IV Pradesh, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition. Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, Andhra the for hearing, upon perusing These Petitions coming on Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the Advocate for the Petitioners in both behalf of the Respondent No.1 V Vinod Reddy, Advocate for the ZP MPDO GP in both the arguments of Sri N Ashwani Kumar the petitions and the Public Prosecutor on for both the petitions and of Sri No.2, Standing Counsel for Respondent petitions. The Court made the following; APHC010496712022 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3C THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA r.RIMINAL PETITION NOs: 7446 AND 7206 OF 2022 Criminal Petition No-7446 of 2022: ^TmANCHU MOHAN BABU„ AGED SR\ EPiP"irs h«d: babu. aged about EDUCATION>S.^INSTITUT1o'nS, R/O plot no 6, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE.^^^^^^^^^^g^ AND 1 THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED By S.HA PRADESH. ...RESP0NDENT/C0MPLAINANT(S): Criminal Petition Nn-7206 of 2022: AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/0 LATE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, SRI SREESAINADHANAGAR, AREPALLE, Between: 1.K.THULASI NAIDU, CHINNAMMA NAIDU VIDYANIKETAN, R/O 10-56-6. m7in9 RANGAMPET, chittoor, andhra^p^desh, occ 2.RAAVURU SATHEESH 2 relations officer, SRI VIDYANIKETAN, R/0 PERIMIDI POST NELLORE, ANDHRA PRADESH 524421. p^^,^,Q^£pj/AcCUSED(S) AND represented by s.h.o, REP through the HIGH 1 THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ""CHANDRAGJR, oTaNDHRA PRADESH, COURT OFSZ^A^yAMAKl. 2.K HEMALATHA, ^GED ABOUT 4 H mANDAL S^^ARISH^D^SAa CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA ...RESP0NDENT/C0N1PLAINANT(S): PRADESH. Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1.N ASHWANl KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2.VVINOD K REDDY (SC FOR ZP MPDO GP) The Court made the following: rrtMMQN ORDER: The instant petitions under Section filed by the Petitioners/Accused 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, Nos.1 to 3 and 4 & 5 in C.C.No.1015 1973^ have been respectively seeking ot quash the proceedings against them of 2021 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati for 341 and 171-F read with 34 of punishable under Sections 290 ^ and Section 34 of Police Act, 1861. the offences the Indian Penal Code, 1860 Heard Sri N.Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Sri 2. Sri V.Vinod K.Reddy, learned Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned learned counsel representing Counsel for Respondent No.2 and Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent G.R.Sudhakar Standing No.1. Assistant 1 for short ‘Cr.P.C 2 for short ‘I.P.C.’ 3 Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5 would submit made several representations to the Government were not Learned counsel for the that Petitioner/Accused No.1 for reimbursement 3. amount for their students and the same conducted a peaceful rally. considered and in that regard, the Petitioners Learned counsel would further Petitioners do not attract the submit that, the allegations leveled against the offences alleged against them. Learned counsel Code of Conduct cannot be attributed to the would further submit that. Model , who were not contesting in the Assembly Election, 2019 and were Petitioners not aiding any politicai party. Learned counsel would finally submit that the do not constitute any offence allegations leveled against the Petitioners against them. Hence, prayed for Petitioners. In support of his contention on the judgments Vs.Government of Jammu quashment of the proceedings against the learned counsel has placed reliance Anita Thakur & Others of the Hon’ble Apex Court in and Kashmir & Others^ this Court in The Parirakshana Samithi of A.P., and Others Vs. The State o District Co-operative Milk Election Officer, Mehsana & Amaravathi * and High Court of Gujarat in Mehsana A.P Limited Vs. The District Producers Union others®. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for entire incident was against the Petitioners. Learned counsel and the vehicles were restrained by the Respondent No.2 would submit that the videographed and there are specific overt acts attributed would further submit that the public Petitioners for four hours. It is also ^ (2016) 15 see 525 MANU/AP/1450/2021 5 MANU/GJ/0638/2019 4 submitted that there are specific allegations against the Petitioners which would attract the alleged offences and as such, this Court cannot conduct mini trial, while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., and prays for dismissal of the petition. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor supported the arguments advanced by the leaned counsel for Respondent No.2. 6. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is: Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5 in C.C.No.1015 of 2021 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati? 7. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the 5. Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and secure powers to circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. reasons 5 rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana 8. The decision . Bhajanlal and others^ is considered as the guiding torch in the 102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt and others v application of Section 482. At Paras out as follows; “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the vanous ''e'evan' provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of iaw enunciated by this Court in a series exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracjed and reproduced above, we give the following categones of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ^nds of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise clearly defined and sufifciently channelised and mflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of mynad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information repod or the Zrnplaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute y offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do^ not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by under Section 156(1) of the Code f ° Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroveded allegations J''! complaint and the evidence collected m support of not disclose the commission of any offence and make out case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations In the FIR do not constitu e ^ aograzaWe offence but constitute only a non-cognizable J’® investigation is permitted by a P°"'®® 5" ..g a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the (5)^Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so ^ absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent pe^ can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6 AIR 1992 SC 604 6 (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” (emphasis supplied) 9. In the case on hand, the case of the prosecution is that, on 22.03.2019 at about 8.30 a.m.. Petitioner No.l/Accused No.1, who is the Chairman of Sri Vidyaniketan Educational Institutions, A.Rangampet Village, Chandragiri Mandal along with Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 5, having secured the presence of their staff and students, congregated together, conducted a rally commencing from Sri Vidyaniketan Educational Institutions towards Tirupati - Madanapalli Road, by raising slogans vociferously against the-then Ruling Government of Andhra Pradesh for not granting Students’ Fee Reimbursement to their educational institutions. They also conducted a dharna from 8.30 a.m., to 12.30 p.m., by raising slogans and thereby caused obstruction to the free flow of traffic, inconvenience, annoyance and risk of passengers knowing fully well that the Model Code of Conduct issued by the Election Commission of India and Prohibitory Orders under Section 30 of 'X 7 Police Act, were in force. On receipt of the information about the said rally r and Dharna, Respondent No.2, being Mandal Parishad Development Officer and Incharge of Model Code of Conduct Team-IV, Chandragiri Assembly Constituency along with her staff rushed to the spot and got videographed the same and lodged a report with the Police. Based on the said report a case in Crime No. 102 of 2019 has been registered against the Petitioners for the alleged offences. As seen from the contents of the charge sheet, there are specific 10. allegations leveled against the Petitioners in the commission of the alleged Though it is the contention of the Petitioners that they have offences. conducted a peaceful rally, they have not restrained the public and a false case has been foisted against them, it is submitted by the learned counsel for Respondent No.2 that the said incident was videographed. However, the said video has not been placed before this Court. When it is alleged about the availability of the videograph, this Court is of the view that the same has to be proved during trial before the trial Court. This Court cannot conduct a mini trial while deciding the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the Petitioners are not helpful to the case of the Petitioners, since the facts and circumstances of the said cases are different from the present case. There are no tenable grounds to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners, at this stage. Since there are factual aspects to be decided during evidence before the trial Court, at this stage, this Court cannot conduct a mini trial while deciding the petition filed under Section 8 482 Cr.P.C. The case is not falling under any of the guidelines mentioned in Bhajanlal’s case (supra). It is a matter of trial for disclosing the truth or otherwise of the allegations leveled against the Petitioners and there are no merits for quashment of the proceedings against them and hence, the petitions deserve dismissal. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition Nos.7446 and 7206 of 2022 are 11. hereby dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K KASIRAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The IV Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tirupati, Chittoor District. 2. The Station House Officer, Chandragiri P.S., Tirupati Urban, Chittoor District. 3. One CC to Sri. N. Ashwani Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri. V. Vinod Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi [OUT] 6. Three CD Copies Stu sree HIGH COURT DATED; 02/01/2025 COMMON ORDER CRLP.Nos.7446 and 7206 of 2022 ^ofanos^ S < 2 mar 2025 Current ueciion DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITIONS