IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAV WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUA TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5246 OF 2022 Between: G. Nageswara Reddy, S/o Sri G. Gidda Reddy, age 56 years. Postal Assistant, R/o Flat No. 78, H.No. 87/1404-3, Dhana Lakshmi Nagar, Sankarayya Goud Colony, Kurnool-518002. [Petitioners name is amended as G.Nageswara Reddy instead of C.Nageswara Reddy, as per Court Order dated 09.10.2023 in lA No.02/2023 in CrI.P. No. 5246 of 2022] ...Petitioner AND 1. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Kurnool Division, Kurnool-518 001. ...Respondent/Complainant 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Spl. Public Prosecutor (CBI), A.P. High Court, Nelapadu, Amaravati, Guntur District ...Respondent Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, praying that in the teHigh Court may be pleased to quash the Charge Sheet in C.C. No. 08 of on the file of the I Special Judge for CBI Cases, Kurnool. ^Number and Court name is amended as per Court order dated 09.10.2023 in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in Crl.P.No.5246 of 2022] 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 Stay all further proceedings against the petitioner in pursuance of the Charge Sheet in C.C. No. 08/2023 on the file of the II Special Judge's Court for C.B.I. Cases, Kurnool, pending disposal of this Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Dantu Srinivas, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, Spl. Respondents. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the The Court made the following: APHC010336962022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5246 of 2022 Between: G. Nageswara Reddy ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The Superintendent Of Post Offices and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: l.DANTU SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. 2.P.S.P.Suresh kumar,Spl.Public Prosecutor For C.B.I. The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant Criminal Petition under Section -482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973^ has been filed, by the Petitioner/A.2, seeking quashment of the Proceedings against him in CC No.08/2023 on the file of the Court of I-Special Judge for CBI Cases, Kurnool. 2. Heard Sri Dantu Srinivas, learned counsel for the Petitioner, and Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases appearing for respondents/State. Perused the material on record. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that in the light of the Common Order dated 13.04.2023 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WP Nos.26990 of'2021 and 5441 of 2022, continuation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioner is mere abuse of process of law. Further, the Division . For short ‘the Code’ 2 Bench of this Court clearly held that as on the date of registration of the FIR that case, the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh was formed and that there was no necessity for the express extension of CBI's jurisdiction by the State Government and hence, registration of FIR and filing of Charge Sheet vitiated by law on the point of jurisdiction. _ 4. Learned counsel would further submit that the CBI Court at Hyderabad could not entertain the case after 02.06.2014 i.e., after bifurcation of the State since required Notification under Prevention of Corruption Act was not issued. Learned counsel submits, that in the light of the said Judgment, the Officer, who registered the crime and filed the report before the Special Court are not one and the same and on that score also, the petition is liable to be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI would submit that recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reversed the findings of the Division Bench of this Court in the Common Order dated 13.04.2023 passed in WP Nos.26990 of 2021 and 5441 of 2022 and allowed the appeals filed by the CBI in SLP(Crl.) No.10737 and 10038 of 2023, dated 02.01.2025. 6. A bare perusal of Section 482 of the Code makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so in are as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 of the Code jurisdiction is not functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and 3 circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. 7. The ambit of powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is enunciated in a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts. While sitting in the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court should be convinced that the allowing criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of the court or the ends of justice require the proceedings ought to be quashed. No doubt, this Court has ample powers under Section 482 which are to be exercised ex debito justitiae, i.e., to do real and substantial justice. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. Specific circumstances warranting invocation of powers under Section 482 have been strongly emphasized in a catena of decisions. To cite a few. State of Haryana'^. Bhajantafa.X paras 102 and 103, Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State ofMaharashtra^ at para 57. 8. Keeping in view the above legal position, the instant case has to be scrutinized. 9. For better understanding, Paragraph-22 of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP Nos. 10737 and 10038 of 2023 is extracted as under: 22. In the light of the discussion as above and construction of the Govt, orders it can only be held that the High Court had erred in holding that there ;? 2 1992 Supp(l)SCC335 3(2020) 10 see 118 4 Sn!nt. subsequent to the CBI Policy Division order regarding the re branches date'^S^^ZOig^and”" CBI Hyderabad and Vishakhapatnam uidfiLnes aatea 2a.03.2019 and issuance of notification bv the Hioh rnurt nf Telangana vide ROC No.334/E-1/2008 dated 03.09.2019 and the transfer o?r? N^35 of 2020 and 37 of 2020 to the Court of the Special Judge S CBI CaseT Kurnool were held as in accordance with law by the High Court In such arcumstances and in the iight of the conciusion already arZfd at the terms of the provisions under circular memo dated 26 05 2014 all "law<;"'pnniirahi the undivided State of Andhra Pradesh on 01 06 2014 *ul c“ tl^^^ to the new States, namely, the State of Telangana and the Ste e of Andhra Wh'hl t? State of AndhfPradlh a such time they were altered, repealed or amended. was 10. Considering the same and a fair look at the material placed as rightly put by learned Special Public Prosecutor for issued by Sri V.Chandrasekhar, CBI/ACB/Hyderabad. Charge sheet would on record, CBI, in the instant case, Superintendent of Police, FIR was disclose that after investigation, Hyderabad filed the report Nampally, Hyderabad, in the light of the law laid down by the N.Raghavendra Kumar, Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, before the Court of Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, 11. For the aforesaid premises and Hon'ble Supreme Court, there deserves dismissal. In the light of the aforesaid are no merits in the Criminal Petition and it reasons, the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner falls to ground. 12. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \ //TRUE COPY// SEcJt^^fficer To, 1. The 1®* Special Judge for CBI cases, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 2. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Kurnool Division, Kurnool-518 001. 3. One CC to Sri Dantu Srinivas, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CC to SRI P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, Special Public Prosecutor for C.B.I., [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED: 29/01/2025 \ ORDER CRLP.No.5246 of 2022 I 18 JUN 2125 S ^»SOesPATC«'S^ V 1.0. DISMISSING THIS CRLP