'/ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8763 OF 2024 r <5 y' / V 's 3 id 'sV'..;* « . I / 'V' >• Between: 1. Kothapalli Samuel Jawahar, S/o Amrutham, age about 58 years, Occ Ex-Minister for Prohibition and Excise, Kovvur Town, West Godavari District. 2. Jonnalagadda Subbaraya Choudary, S/o Tatarao, age about 54 years, R/o Kovvur Town, West Godavari District. 3. Burugupalli Veera Raghavulu, s/o Satyanarayana, age 49 years, R/o Vadapalli Village, Kovvur Mandal, West Godavari District. 4. Garapati Venkata Krishna, S/o Suranna, age about 54 years, R/o Kovvur Town, West Godavari District. 5. Vegi Satyanarayana @ Chinna, S/o Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, age about 61 years, R/o Pasivedala Village, Kovvur Mandal, West Godavari District. 6. Paladugu Laxmana Rao, S/o Surya Rao, age about 44 years, R/o Chidipi Village, Kovvur Mandal, West Godavari District. 7. Mutyala Rambabu, S/o Krishna Rao, age about 39 years, R/o Penkanametta Village, Kovvur Mandal, West Godavari District. 8. Talluri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, S/o Rama Rao, age about 49 years, R/o Pasivedala Village, Kovvur Mandal, West Godavari District. 9. Vemulapalli Srinivasu, S/o Venkata Rao, age about 49 years, R/o Pasivedala Village, Kovvur Mandal, West Godavari District. Potru Siddhartha Sankar @ Sidhu, S/o Kondala Rao, age about 51 years, R/o I.Pangidi Village, Kovvur Mandal, West Godavari District. Marisetti Srinivas, S/o Mahalaxmi, age about 36 years, R/o Dharavaram Village, Chagallu Mandal, West Godavari District. 10. 11. 12. . Maddipati Veera Raghavulu, S/o Narayana Rao, age about 57 years, R/o Chandravaram Village, Chagallu Mandal, West Godavari District. ... Petitioners/1 to 12 AND 1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi through Kovvur Rural Police Station. ...Respondent/State 2. . Sri P.S.Rama Krishna, H.C.No.1854, Kovvur Rural Police Station at Kovvur, West Godavari District. .... Respondent/Defacto-Complainant Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records and quash the proceedings against the petitioners in connection with CC.No.1544 of 2021, on the file of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kovvur. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed 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 including appearance of the petitioners in CC.No.1544 of 2021, on the file of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kovvur, pending disposal of the Quash Petition, Pending disposal of CRLP 8763 of 2024, on the file of the High Court. The petition, coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of SRI K V L NARASIMHA RAO Advocate for the Petitioners, Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1, and the Court made the following. ORDER AP 13010545132024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8763/2024 Between: 1 KOTHAPALLI SAMUEL JAWAHAR, S/0 AMRUTHAM, AGE ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC EX-MINISTER FOR PROHIBITION AND EXCISE, KOWUR TOWN, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 2, JONNALAGADDA SUBBARAYA CHOUDARY, S/0 TATARAO, AGE ^ ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/0 KOWUR TOWN, WEST GODAVARI ' DISTRICT. 3. BURUGUPALLI VEERA RAGHAVULU, S/0 SATYANARAYANA, AGE 49 YEARS, R/0 VADAPALLI VILLAGE, KOWUR MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. GARAPATI VENKATA KRISHNA, S/0 SURANNA, AGE ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/0 KOWUR TOWN, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 5. VEGI SATYANARAYANA @ CHINNA, S/O VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, AGE ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/0 PASIVEDALA VILLAGE, KOWUR MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 6. PALADUGU LAXMANA RAO, S/O SURYA RAO, AGE ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/0 CHIDIPI VILLAGE, KOWUR MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 7. MUTYALA RAMBABU, S/O KRISHNA RAO, AGE ABOUT 39 YEARS, KOWUR MANDAL, WEST R/0 PENKANAMETTA VILLAGE GODAVARI DISTRICT. 8. TALLURI VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, S/O RAMA RAO, AGE ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/0 PASIVEDALA VILLAGE, KOWUR MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2 S/0 VENKATA RAO AGE ABOUT kowur'^a^^west ® ®'0 KONDALA RAO years, r/0 i.pangidi village MANDAL, west GODAVARI DISTRICT. 11.MARISETTI SRINIVAS, S/0 MAHALAXMI R/0 DHARAVARAM VILLAGE GODAVARI DISTRICT 12.. MADDIPATI VEERA RAGHAVULU, S/O NARAYANA RAO APF ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O CHANDRAVARAM VILLAGE CHAGALIII MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. CHAGALI U 49 KOWUR AGE ABOUT 36 YEARS, CHAGALLU MANDAL, WEST ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PROSECUTOR, HIGH PRADESH, REP. BY ITS COURT OF ANDHRA AMARAVATHI THROUGH KOVVUR RURAL POLICE PUBLIC PRADESH AT STATION. 2.SRI P S RAMA KRISHNA, H.C.N0.1854, KOVVUR RURAL POLICF STATION AT KOVVUR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1.KVLNARASIMHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER The Criminal Petition has been .filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS')/Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.,’) seeking against the Petitioners in connection for quashment of the proceedings registered 3 witfi the C.C.No.1544/2021 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kovvur. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that on 02.02.2020 at about 04.45 p.m., Respondent No.2/de-facto complainant along with one police constable bearing No.2131 were doing traffic duty at center of I.Pangidi Village. The accused in the leadership of Accused Nos.1, 2 to 12 came there on motorcycles as a rally by displaying the flags of Telugu Desam Party and with their act traffic was obstructed. Then the police constable bearing No.2131 approached them and informed that Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861 (for brevity ‘the Act.,’) was in vogue and asked the accused to clear their vehicles as they were causing traffic obstruction. However, the accused did not heed the instruction, and they continued protest for about 20 minutes in the center and left towards Chagallu Village side as motorcycle vehicle rally. Basfed on the report of the said police constable a case in Crime No.43/2020 was registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 188, 143, 341, 353 read with 149 and 34 of the I PC and Section 190(ii) of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity ‘the M.V Act’) and also Section 32 of ‘the Act.’ The police investigated the case and filed a chargesheet against the Petitioners/Accused. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 188, 143, 341, 353 read with 149 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and Section 190 (ii) of ‘the M.V. Act’ and Section 32 of ‘the Act.,’ and numbered it as C.C.No.1544/2021. 2. 3. 4 4. Sri K.V.L.Narasimha Rao, learned Counsel for the Petitioners while reiterating the grounds of the petition argued that the learned Magistrate cannot take cognizance in view of the bar contained under Section 195 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ as there was no complaint in writing by the public servant concerned, lodging of FIR cannot be resorted to and hence urged to quash the proceedings. On the other hand, Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argues that the Petitioners caused obstruction to the traffic by unauthorizedly indulged in traffic violations inspite of there being a warning from the police. They have also violated the instructions of the police. Hence the learned Magistrate was right in taking cognizance of the offences. It is urged to dismiss the Petition. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 7. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the proceedings In C.C.No. 1544/2021 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kovvur are liable to be quashed in exercise of the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of ‘the Cr..PC., ’/Section 528 of ‘the BNSS’?" Indeed, a learned Single Judge of this Court by way of order dated 02.03.2023 in CrI.P.No.7447/2022 in the similar facts and circumstances of the case quashed the proceedings. Similarly, a learned Single Judge of this Court by way of order dated 01.08.2023 in Crl.P.No.5287/2023 quashed the criminal proceedings in the similar set of circumstances. 5. 8. 5 The Hon’ble Apex Court in Bandekar Bros. (P) Ltd. v. Prasad Vassudev KenP, at para No.48 it is held as under; 9. “48. Equally important to remember is that if in the course of the same transaction two separate offences are made out, for one of which Section 195 CrPC is not attracted, and it is not possible to split them up, the drill of Section 195(1)(b) CrPC must be followed. Thus, in State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy [State of Karnataka k Hemareddy (1981)2 see 185 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 395], this Court referred to a judgment of the Madras High Court (V.V.L. Narasimhamurthy In re [V.V.L. Narasimhamurthy v. State, 1953 SCC OnLine Mad 236: AIR 1955 Mad 237]) and approved its ratio as follows : (Hemareddy case [State of Karnataka v. Hemaredd,y (1981) 2 SCC 185 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 395] SCC pp. 190-91, paras 7-8) “7. ...In the third case, Somasundaram, J., has observed : (V.V.L. Narasimhamurthy case [V.V.L. Narasimhamurthy v. State, 1953 SCC OnLine Mad 236 : AIR 1955 Mad 237], SCC OnLine Mad) ‘The main point on which Mr Jayarama Ayyar appearing for the petitioner seeks to quash this committal is that on the facts an offence under Section 193 IPC is disclosed for which the court cannot take cognizance without a complaint by the court as provided under Section 195(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The first question which arises for consideration is whether on the facts mentioned in the complaint, an offence under Section 193 IPC is revealed. Section 193 reads as follows: “193. Punishment for false evidence.—Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a Judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. ” “Fabrication of false evidence” is defined in Section 192. The relevant portion of it is: “Whoever causes any circumstance to exist intending that such circumstance may appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding and that such circumstance may cause any person who in such proceeding is to form an opinion upon the evidence to entertain an erroneous opinion touching any point material to the result of such proceeding is said “to fabricate false evidence”. ” The effect of the allegations in the complaint preferred by the complainant is that the petitioner has caused this will to come into existence intending that such will may cause the Judge before whom the suit is filed to form an opinion that the will is a genuine one and, therefore, his minor daughter is entitled to the property. The allegation, therefore, in the complaint will undoubtedly fall under Section 192 IRC. It will, therefore, amount to an offence under Section 193 IRC i.e. fabricating false evidence for the purpose of being used In the judicial proceeding. There is no doubt that the facts disclosed will also amount to an offence under Sections 467 and 471 IRC. For prosecuting this petitioner for an offence under Sections 467 and 471, a complaint by the court may not be necessary as under Section 195(1)(b) CrRC a (2020) 20 see 1 6 complaint may be made only when it is committed by a party to any proceeding in any court. Mr Jayarama Ayyar does not give up his contention that the petitione,r though he appears only a guardian of the minor girl, is still a party to the proceeding.' But it is unnecessary to go into the question at the present moment anchl reserve my opinion on the question whether the guardian can be a party to a proceeding or not, as this case can be disposed of on the other point viz. that when the allegations amount to an offence under Section 193 IPC, a complaint of court is necessary under Section 195(1)(a) CrPC and this cannot be evaded by prosecuting the accused for an offence for which a complaint of court is not necessary. ’ 8. We agree with the view expressed by the learned Judge and hold that in cases where in the course of the same transaction an offence for which no complaint by a court is necessary under Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and an offence for which a complaint of a court is necessary under that sub-section, are committed, it is not possible to split up and hold that the prosecution of the accused for the offences not mentioned in Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be upheld. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Kantamaneni Ravishankar State of A.P.,2 at para No.86 it is held as under; }}}) 10. V. “86. Therefore, to register a crime against a person, who disobeyed the ordinance, there must be a complaint from public servant about the disobedience of ordinance. Hence, the very registration of crime for the offence punishable under Section 188 of I.PC. is contrary to the settled law laid down by the Apex Court and other High Courts (referred supra) and the police officer is incompetent to register a crime for the offence punishable under Section 188 of I.PC. on the complaint of any other person other than a public servant and any other person, who is authorized by pubic servant. Consequently, registration of crime against the petitioner is vitiated by irregularity. ” Section 195 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ mandates that in respect of offences 11. contemplated under Section 172 to 188 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ the Court cannot take cognizance except on a complaint in writing by the public servant. 12. In this case, a police constable tendered First Information Report to the police, which procedure is deprecated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bandekar supra. The proper course would have been that the Station House Officer concerned ought to have submitted a complaint to the learned Jurisdictional "2020 see Online AP 726 7 Magistrate in accordance with Section 190 and 200 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ Therefore the proceedings on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvuru are vitiated for non-compliance of the legislative mandate laid in Section 195 of ‘the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in Cr.N0.1544/2024 on the file of the learned 11 Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvuru are quashed. 13. SD/-B.CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANTREGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECYidN OFFICER To 1 The II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kovvur. 2. Sri P.S.Rama Krishna. H.C.No.1854, Kovvur Rural Police Station at West Godavari District, (by RPAD) K V L NARASIMHA RAO Advocate [OPUC] PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of Andhra Kovvur, 3. OneCCto SRI. 4. Two CCs to Pradesh.[OUT] 5. One spare copy ksr HIGH COURT DR.YLR, J DATED: 15/09/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.8763 of 2024 ALLOWED