. H • ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVAJ^ffi TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY 1 TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE am PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4350 OF 2022 Between; 1. Padala Veera Venkata Rajesh, S/o.Chanti Babu, Aged about 23 Kapu by caste, R/o of D.No.36-24-8. V.T.College Goulamma temple, Rajamahendravaram , East Godavari District Aadhar 5393 8700 0353 (A-1) years. Road, Near 2. Padala Chinna Rao, S/o.Ramulu, Aged about 35 years, Kapu by caste R/o D.No.31-4-09 Mochi street, Rajamahendravaram. Aadhar No.3049 4155 3664 (A-2) Akula Gangayya Bhavathi, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO. 1 & 2 / IN CC NO. 3676 /2021 AND 1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andrha Pradesh at Amaravathi, Through, Station House Officer, II Town ( L and O) Police Station, South Zone, Rajamahendravaram Urban 2. Marisetti Trinadh Chinna Gowri, S/o Nageswara Rao, Aged about 36 years, Kapy by caste. Resident of D.No.36-21-15, Sappavari Street, Innispeta, Rajahmahendravaram East Godavari District ...RESPONDENTS/ R-2 IS THE DEFECTO COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, ■ ■ Vs; the High Court may be pleased to pass an Order by quashing the Criminal proceedings against the Petitioners 1 and 2 herein C.C.No.3676 of 2021 in Crime No.110 of 2021 of II Town (L and 0) P.S., Rajamahendravara m Urban pending on the file of V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District. I.A. 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 pass an interim Order by way of stay of all further proceedings against the Petitioners 1 and 2 herein in C.C.No.3676 of 2021 in Crime No.110 of 2021 of II Town (L and 0) P.S., Rajamahendravaram Urban pending on the file of V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Rajamahendravara m, East Godavari District pending disposal of the main Criminal Petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri CHANDRA SEKHAR ILAPAKURTI .Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent The Court made the following ORDER : APHC010263992022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4350/2022 [3396] Between: 1.PADALA VEERA VENKATA RAJESH, S/O.CHANTI BABU, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, KAPU BY CASTE, R/0 OF D.NO.36-24-8, V.T.COLLEGE ROAD, NEAR GOULAMMA TEMPLE, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM , EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT AADHAR 5393 8700 0353 2.PADALA CHINNA RAO, S/O.RAMULU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, KAPU BY CASTE, R/0 D.NO.31-4-09, MOCHI STREET, AKULA GANGAYYA BHAVATHI, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM. AADHAR NO.3049 4155 3664 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDRHA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI, THROUGH, STATION HOUSE OFFICER, II TOWN ( L AND O) POLICE STATION, SOUTH ZONE, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM URBAN 2.MARISETTI TRINADH CHINNA GOWRI, S/0 NAGESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, KAPY BY CASTE, RESIDENT OF D.NO.36-21-15, SAPPAVARI STREET, INNISPETA, RAJAHMAHENDRAVARAM EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1.CHANDRA SEKHAR ILAPAKURTI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 9 % ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973^ has been filed, by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2, seeking quashment of the proceedings against them in C.C.No.3676 of 2021 on the file of the Court of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram for the offences under Sections 323 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860^. 2. Heard Sri I. Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No. 1/State. In spite of service of notice, none appeared for Respondent No.2. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the present case has been registered as a counterblast to the complaint lodged by the mother of the Petitioner/Accused No.1 herein against Respondent No.2 and others, which was registered as a case in Crime No. 109 of 2021 of II Town Police Station, Rajamahendravaram for the offences under Sections 323 and 506 read with 34 IPC. Learned counsel would further submit that the Police have not followed the procedure contemplated under Section 155 of Cr.P.C and the learned Magistrate without assigning any plausible reasons granted permission to the Police on their requisition to register the complaint and file a report, as such the proceedings against the Petitioners are liable to be quashed. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the 1 in short ‘Cr.P.C.’ ^ in short ‘IPC; Composite High Court ofA.P., at Hyderabad in S.Yadagiri Reddy and others vs. State of A.P.,^, wherein, it was held as under: - “Then coming to the second argument, as rightly submitted by learned counsel for petitioners, except according permission to investigate the matter, learned Magistrate has not assigned any plausible reasons which prompted him to grant such permission. In Sajjal Agarwal and another vs. State of A.P./, this Court observed thus: “Para 10 - It is contended by the petitioners counsel that the Courts below in these two cases granted permission under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C without giving any reasons for grant of such permission. In case a police officer or a complainant approaches the Magistrate for permission under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C., it is not incumbent on the Magistrate to grant the permission invariably. It Is open to the Magistrate either to grant permission or refuse to grant permission. When there is such discretion vested in the Magistrate, it is desirable that the Magistrate should give reasons for empowering a police officer to investigate a non- cognizable case, so that an aggrieved party will be in a position to question the same in higher Courts and will be in a position to know for what reasons his application was considered or not considered. This Court is of the opinion that the Magistrate' should not be casual in granting permission under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C., simply because a police officer requested for such The Magistrate has to consider entire permission, gamut of the case and take into account whether a police officer will be in a position to collect better material during Investigation than the complainant himself furnishing material in support of his case. Otherwise there Is every possibility of misuse of Section 155(2) Cr.P.C In case such power is given to any unscrupulous police officer misusing his official position and harassing the named accused persons. ” Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court may 4. pass appropriate orders. ^ 2019(1) ALD(Cri) 939 2011 (1) ALD(Cri)70 4 \ Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint with the Police against the 5. Petitioners alleging that, she has been doing Seat Cover works along with her nephew. That being so, on 07.04.2021 at about 4.30 p.m., while Respondent No.2 was in her shop, the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2, came to her, lifted their bike, disputed with her stating that they would vacate her shop, beat them with hands, tore her T-shirt and also threatened to kill them. 6. In the instant case, the Police have submitted a requisition dated 12.04.2021 to the learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram seeking permission to register a case against the Petitioners for the offences under Sections 323 and 506 IPC, since they are non-cognizance offences. The learned Magistrate, vide Order dated 15.04.2021 accorded permission to the Inspector of Police, II Town L&O Police Station, Rajamahendravaram to conduct investigation and file a report against the Petitioners. For ready reference, the order is extracted hereunder. "On perusal of the requisition along with the report of defacto complainant/M. China GowrI filed by the Inspector of Police, II Town L&O P.S., Rajamahendravaram under reference cited, the Inspector of Police, II Town L&O P.S., Rajamahendravaram is hereby permitted to conduct investigation and to file report against the accused for the alleged offence U/s.323 and 506 IPC according to the procedure prescribed by law since it is a non-cognizable offence. ” A bare perusal of the above order discloses that, no plausible reason 7. was assigned by the learned Magistrate in according permission to the Inspector of Police, II Town L&O P.S., Rajamahendravaram to conduct investigation and file report in a non-cognizable offence. The order is bereft of any reasons, which is not in accordance with Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. 5 Therefore, in view of the procedural violations, the Order of the learned Magistrate is liable to be set aside. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed, setting aside the Order dated 15.04.2021 passed by the V Additional Judicial Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram. The learned Magistrate is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 8. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. assistant REGiST^ SECJ^t)FFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District 2. The Station House Officer, II Town ( L and O) Police Station, South Zone, Rajamahepdravaram Urban, East Godavari District 3. OneCC to SRI. CHANDRA SEKHAR ILAPAKURTI Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to The Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies SD HIGH COURT DATED:28/01/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.4350 of 2022 s> 5 19 JUN 2025 ^* Cufreni aecuon %^?SPATCHt5.5^ ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION