APHC010546692025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11183/2025 Between: 1. GANGADASARI RAVICHANDRA REDDY ALIAS RAVI, S/O.CHINA VENKATA SUBBA REDDY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O.SREEPATIRAOPETA ATMAKUR, KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 2. BOBBA JYOTHI KRISHNA KANTHA REDDY ALIAS JYOTHI REDDY, S/O.LATE HUSSAIN REDDY, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/O. S REEPATI RAOPETA ATMAKUR, KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 3. PALAKOTI SRINIVASULU ALIAS CHAKALAI SRINU ALIAS MADHU, S/O.LATE PALAKOTI VENKATA SIVUDU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O.SREEPATIRAOPETA ATMAKUR, KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 4. RAMBABU, W/O.V.RUPA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, SRI SAI TEXTILES SHOP NO.4-145, MARUTHINAGAR, MALKAZGIRI HYDERABAD CITY, TELANGANA. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF A.P., AMARAVATI 2. PRATAP REDDY INDURI, S/O.LATE I.P.NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/O.GOVINDAPALLI VILLAGE SIRIVEI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH 2 ...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 relating the proceedings in S.C.No.01 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Hon’ble V Additional District Judge, Allagadda, Nandyal District, Andhra Pradesh and quash the same in so far as the Petitioners/ A-5, A-6, A-8 & A-9 are concerned and quash the same as the same is illegal, arbitrary and abuse of process of law and pass IA NO: 1 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 to grant stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the Petitioners/ A-5, A-6, A-8 & A-9 in S.C.No.01 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Hon’ble V Additional District Judge, Allagadda, Nandyal District, Andhra Pradesh pending disposal of the Criminal Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. YASWANTH GADE Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. YASWANTH GADE Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11183/2025 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.5, 6, 8 & 9, seeking quashment of the proceedings pending against them in S.C.No.01 of 2021 on the file of V Additional District Judge, Allagadda, Nandyal District, Andhra Pradesh for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 r/w 149 & 120(B) of IPC and Section 25(1)(b) of Arms Act. 2. Heard Sri K.Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri G.Yashwanth, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Varun Byreddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing on behalf of the State. 3. Sri K.Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners would submit that absolutely there is no evidence against the Accused Nos.5, 6, 8 and 9. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the names of the petitioners herein are not referred in the F.I.R. During the course of investigation, the names are mentioned. Learned Senior Counsel 4 would further submit that no test of identification parade was conducted in this case to identify the petitioners herein as participants of the offence. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the except vague and omnibus allegations, there are no specific attributes made against the petitioners to conduct the trial for the offences under Sections 148, 302 r/w 149 & 120(B) of IPC and Section 25(1)(b) of Arms Act. Learned Senior Counsel also brought to the notice of this Court that after completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the accused except A-3 and A-4 deleting their names basing on the statements of LW’s-8 to 15 believing their plea of alibi. Thereafter, the defacto complainant filed a protest petition and now they are also facing the trial in the said case. Learned Senior counsel finally prays of quashment of the case against the petitioners stating that except their confession statement, nothing is there against the petitioners to face the trial in this matter. 4. Per contra, Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the case of the prosecution is not totally relied on the confession of the petitioners. The information given by the petitioners as accused before the Investigating Officer lead to recovery of weapons which are used in commission of crime. Apart from that, the mobile phones of the petitioners were also seized in this matter. The prosecution placed before the Court whatever gathered against these petitioners. During the course of the investigation, the learned Judge has taken cognizance of the offence against these petitioners also. Whatever contentions/grounds raised in the present 5 petition are a matter of defence and this Court cannot decide the genuineness of such contentions while exercising the inherent jurisdiction. 5. Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing the defacto complainant would submit that the contentions raised by the petitioners seeking quashment are matter of defence. This Court cannot conduct a mini trial. He would further submit that it is a case of double murder. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has taken a decision to delete the A-3 and A-4. Thereafter, a protest petition was filed by the defacto complainant and the Court has taken cognizance of the case against the A-3 and A-4 also. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that this is not a fit case for quashment and finally prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the material placed on record, as can be seen from the petition, the petitioners have filed the present petition for quashment of the criminal proceedings against them on the grounds that there is no specific mention of the petitioners in the statements of the eyewitnesses, who have at best expressed mere suspicion about their alleged collusion; that the forensic reports recorded no traces of blood on the weapon; that the prosecution case solely relies upon the alleged confessions or disclosures of the other accused; that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners except omnibus and vague assertions; that the deletion of A-3 and A-4 underlines investigational frailty, though A-3 and 6 A-4 were subsequently added later vide order dated 13.09.2019; that there is no corroborative linkage—whether telephonic, forensic, or financial— connecting the seized items to the commission of the crime; and that there are no particulars of meetings or money transactions as alleged in the charge sheet. 7. As rightly put by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and submitted by the learned Senior Counsel representing on behalf of the de-facto complainant that the grounds raised in the present petition are matter of defence. It is represented that before the Trial Court, the matter is coming up for fixing the Trial schedule. The charges have been framed by the Trial Court against these petitioners also. This is not a case, where basing on the alleged confession statements of the petitioners, the case is lodged against the petitioners. As rightly pointed out, basing on such alleged confessions, the Investigating Officer traced out the material evidence which are alleged to be used in commission of crime. As rightly put by the learned Senior Counsel representing the de-facto complainant, this is a case of double murder i.e., the death of two persons. The brother of one of the deceased has given this complaint. This Court cannot appreciate the material which is gathered by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. There is verifiable material which requires investigation at full length of Trial. Such being the case, this Court cannot quash the case against the petitioners. 7 8. In that view, this Criminal Petition is disposed of. However, the petitioners are at liberty to raise all such contentions before the Trial Court. Learned Trial Judge is directed to appreciate such contentions and take appropriate decision over the matter at appropriate time according to law. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 29.10.2025. UPS 8 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11183/2025 Dated.29.10.2025 UPS 202