APHC010312222023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4431/2023 Between: 1. VUNDI SASANKA, S/O. VUNDI BASKARAM, AGED ABOT 29 YEARS, R/O.POLASANIPALLI VILLAGE, BIMADOLE MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DIST. 2. B GOPALA KRISHNA, S/O.B.VENKANNA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC. POLICE OFFICER AT BIMADOLE POLICE STATIOON, BIMADOLE MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT. ...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 Courtpleased to call for the records in. C.C.N0.112 OF 2023 on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class Bimadole, Eluru District and consequently quash the same and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 stay all further proceedings in C.C.NO.112 OF 2023 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimadole, Eluru District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. PILLIX LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4431/2023 ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, <Cr.P.C.=), has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking to call for the records in C.C.No.112 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimadole, Eluru District and consequently quash the same. 2. Heard Sri P. Kasi Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there are no ingredients to attract the offences punishable under Sections 353 & 506 of IPC in this matter. Learned counsel would furthersubmit that the police have executed the Non-Bailable Warrant against the junior paternal uncle of the petitioner. In that matter, when the junior paternal uncle of the petitioner was taken to the police station by the police for execution of Non-Bailable Warrant which was issued by the concerned Court in C.C.No.803 of 2022, which is a private complaint for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,the petitioner objected the same by approaching the police station stating that the matter was already settled and there is no need to take his junior paternal uncle into custody and produce before the Court. In that context, the case came to be registered against the petitioner on the complaint made by the Constable who executed the Non-Bailable Warrant. Learned counsel would further submit that the case was withdrawn by the complainant when the junior paternal uncle of the petitioner who was accused in C.C.No.803 of 2022 was produced before the Court. Learned counsel, in order to address his contention,submitted that the order dated 25.01.2023 passed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.803 of 2022, was filed at page No.43 along with the criminal petition. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Dhananjay v. Cabinet Secretary & Ors 1 .Learned counsel would further submit that continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner amounts to abuse of the process of law,as he had no intention to obstruct the public servants in discharging their duties. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor,opposed the petition and would submit that there are clear allegations made against the petitioner to attract the offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC, since the petitioner had threatened the police, while they were executing the Non-Bailable Warrant against his junior paternal uncle. 5. Considering the submissions made and a perusal of the complaint made by respondent No.2 in this matter would show that the police have taken the junior paternal uncle of the petitioner to the police station. The petitioner has approached the police and requested them to leave his uncle stating that the matter was already compromised. Be that as it may, the police have 1Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5905/2022 executed the Non-Bailable Warrant and produced the junior paternal uncle of the petitioner before the Court. 6. As can be seen from the order dated 25.01.2023 passed by the Trial Court, petition under Section 257 of Cr.P.C has been filed for withdrawal of the complaint stating that the matter was settled between them. In that light, the case vide C.C.No.803 of 2022, was ended in acquittal. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Dhananjay v. Cabinet Secretary & Ors, held as follows: <It is on the basis of the above complaint that an FIR has been lodged against the appellant. However, the only allegation against the appellant in the said complaint is that he was shouting and threatening the staff. This itself will not amount to any assault. Assault is defined under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code as under: <353 Assault – Whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person, is said to commit an assault.= We have reproduced the entire complaint hereinabove.On perusing the same, we find that none of the ingredients, as mentioned in Section 353 IPC, is reflected in the complaint letter. In other words, no offence under Section 353 IPC is made out in this case. The High Court, to our mind, has committed a mistake in not interfering in this case. This is a case which is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and therefore, in order to meet the ends of justice, we allow this appeal and quash the entire proceedings initiated against the appellant.= (Emphasis supplied) 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.N. John vs. State of UP and Anr.2, held as follows: <23. A close examination of Section 353 of the IPC would indicate that to invoke the aforesaid offence, there must be use of criminal force or assault on any public servant in the execution of his official duty or with the intent to prevent or deter such public servant from discharging his duty. It would be clear from a reading of the provisions of Section 186 as well as Section 353 of the IPC that Section 353 of the IPC is the aggravated form of offence where criminal force or assault is involved. Unlike in the case of Section 186 of the IPC where voluntarily obstructing any public servant in discharge of his official function is sufficient to invoke the said section, in the case of offence under Section 353 of the IPC as mentioned above, not only obstruction but actual use of criminal force or assault on the public servant is necessary. (Emphasis supplied) 9. As seen from the legal positions referred supra and in light of the facts of the present case, it is not the case where the petitioner allegedly attacked or assaulted the police constable who came to apprehend the junior paternal uncle of the petitioner, the petitioner tried to inform the constable that the case against his junior paternal uncle under 138 NI Act was compoundedand there is no necessity to arrest him. In the absence of allegations of using criminal force or assaulting a public servant, continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of process of law and the crime registered against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed, by quashing the proceedings pending against the petitionerherein/Accused in C.C.No.112 of 22025 INSC 4 2023 on file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimadole, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 353 and 506 of IPC. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 02.12.2025. TVN HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4431/2023 Dated.02.12.2025 TVN 75