APHC010099992024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1231/2024 Between: 1. RAVI SAMBASIVA RAO, S/O.SEETHARAMAIAH, AGED 70, R/O.DOOR NO.4-125, MADDIIRU VILLAGE, KANKIPADU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. KARLA SREENIVASA RAO, S/O. BHASKARA RAO, AGED 52, R/O.FLAT NO.406, PATAMATALANKA, VIJAYAWADA. 3. MEDISETTY NAGA ANKALARAO, S/O.SUBRAHMANYESWARA RAO, AGED 43, R/O.DOOR NO.62-8-9-1, SATYANARAYANA NAGAR, KRISHNALANKA, VIJAYAWADA. 4. ANNAPAREDDY RAMANA REDDY, S/O.VENKATESWARLU, AGED 35, R/O.41-30-23, RANIGARITHOTA, CHALASANI NAGAR, KRISHNALANKA, VIJAYAWADA. 5. ANANTHANENI AZAD, S/O. SRINIVASA RAO, AGED 41, R/O. D.NO.24-96, NEAR MANDAPAM, YANAMALAKUDURU VILLAGE, PENAMALURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 6. VELAGAPUDI RAVI KIRAN, S/O. NAGABHUSHANAM, AGED 39, R/O. D.NO. 23-115, NEAR MANDAPAM, YANAMALAKUDURU VILLAGE, PENAMALURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 7. MADALA SREENIVASA RAO, S/O. SAMBASIVA RAO, AGED 44, R/O.H.NO.74-14-40, YANAMALAKUDURU LAKULU ROAD, KRISHNA LANKA, PATAMATA, VIJAYAWADA. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI. 2. V VENKATESH SI6359, S/O.REDDIYYA, AGED 28, OCC.SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PENAMALURU POLICE STATION, R/O.PENAMALARU POLICE STATION, VIJAYAWADA CITY. ...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 may be pleased to quash C.C.No.428 of 2023 on the file of the VI Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in C.C.No.428 of 2023 on the file of the VI Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. P SAI SURYA TEJA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 3 The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused, seeking quashment of the Proceedings against them in C.C.No.428 of 2023 on the file of the Court of VI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 269 IPC and Section 34(A) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act and Section 36(1)(b) & (C) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Second Amendment Act, 2019. Heard Sri P.Sai Surya Teja, learned counsel for the Petitioners, and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent State. Learned counsel for the Petitioners/ Accused would submit that the subject matter of this Criminal Petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Venkateswara Rao Kesineni v.The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.2 and the same orders may be passed in this Criminal Petition by disposing of this Criminal Petition. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that regarding the excise offence there is no order and nothing is referred in the Charge sheet. Coming to the offence, the subject matter is squarely covered by the decision cited supra. For betting understanding, it is beneficiary to extract the paragraphs 9 to 11 of the decision supra, which are relevant to the subject matter and read thus: 9. In Paiaavula Keshavulu’s case referred to supra which was followed in Criminal Petition No.1541 of 2019, a learned Judge was dealing with a matter where the petitioner therein was charge sheeted for the offences under Sections 188 and 283 of IPC. In the said case, there was no complaint by the public 1 for short ‘Cr.P.C’ 2.MANU/AP/1129/2023 4 servant and the Sub-Inspector of Police filed the Charge Sheet. The learned Judge after considering the matter, quashed the proceedings against the petitioner therein, inter alia opining as follows: “3……..In any event, the main offence is under Section 188 IPC and the offence alleged under Section 283 IPC is only incidental to the main offence. The main offence, as already stated, is allegedly disobedience to the orders duly promulgated by the Director General of Police. Section 195 of the Cr.P.C., lays down that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. Here, there is no complaint filed by any public servant. The Sub-Inspector of Police filed the charge sheet. In Supreme Court held that the prosecution under Section 182 must be on a complaint in writing by the Tahsildar (public servant). In view of that absolute bar against the Courts for taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 182 of the IPC, except in the manner provided by Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. The judgment equally applies to the offence under Section 188 also. In this case, there is no complaint in writing by the public servant concerned or by some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. Therefore, in view of the bar under Section 195(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 198 IPC on the report submitted by the Sub- Inspector of Police, Gooti Police Station. Therefore, the cognizance is taken contrary to the specific bar envisaged under Section 195(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C.” 10. In the light of the above stated legal position, continuation of proceedings/investigation against the petitioner is not tenable. Though the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor made all efforts to impress upon that the police can investigate into the matter in respect of the offence under Section 269 of IPC, as the said offence is incidental to the main offence i.e., Section 188 of IPC, this Court is not inclined to appreciate the same. As laid down in the above referred orders, once main offence itself is registered contrary to the legal 5 position, the ancillary/incidental offence also cannot be proceeded with. The decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the considered opinion of this Court applies in all fours to the case on hand. In such view of the matter, interference by this Court is warranted, as continuation of investigation would amount to abuse of process of Law. Therefore, the submissions made by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor are rejected. 11. For the reasons stated supra, the complaint lodged against the Petitioner vide F.I.R.No.247 of 2020 on the file of Vijayawada, II Town Police Station, Vijayawada, is hereby quashed and the Criminal Petition is allowed, accordingly. As far as the offences punishable under Andhra Pradesh Excise Act are con- cerned, Petitioner obtained licence and that there are no allegations with regard to the said offences and nothing is referred in the charge sheet. Considering the submissions and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Proceedings in C.C.No.428 of 2023 on the file of the Court of VI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, against the Petitioners are hereby quashed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Mjl/* 6 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No. 1231 of 2024 30.10.2025 Mjl/*