APHC010465172025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION Between: 1. LINGAYATH BHANUPRAKASH GOUD, S/o L. YugandharGoud, Age. 31 years, Occupation.Agriculture, Resident of Sirugapuram Village, ChinthakuntaPanchayath, Halaharvi Mandal, AlurTaluk,Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh. 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary Home Department, Secretariat Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Director General of Police DGP, Andhra Pradesh, Police Headquarters, Mangalagiri, Amaravati, Guntur Distr 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police DIG, Kurnool Range Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Superintendent of Police SP, Kurnool District, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh. 5. The Deputy Superintendent of Police DSP, Pathikonda Sub Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh. 6. The Station House Officer SHO, Alur Police Station, Alur, Kurnool District. 7. The Station House Officer SHO, Halaharvi Police Station, Halaharvi, Kurnool District. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 23603 OF 2025 1. LINGAYATH BHANUPRAKASH GOUD, S/o L. YugandharGoud, Age. 31 years, Occupation.Agriculture, Resident of Sirugapuram Village, ChinthakuntaPanchayath, Halaharvi Mandal, AlurTaluk,Kurnool District, ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary Home Department, Secretariat Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Director General of Police DGP, Andhra Pradesh, Police Headquarters, Mangalagiri, Amaravati, Guntur District -522503.. 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police DIG, Kurnool Range Kurnool, 4. The Superintendent of Police SP, Kurnool District, Kurnool, Andhra 5. The Deputy Superintendent of Police DSP, Pathikonda Sub l District, Andhra Pradesh. 6. The Station House Officer SHO, Alur Police Station, Alur, Kurnool District. 7. The Station House Officer SHO, Halaharvi Police Station, Halaharvi, IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA 1. LINGAYATH BHANUPRAKASH GOUD, S/o L. YugandharGoud, Age. 31 years, Occupation.Agriculture, Resident of Sirugapuram Village, ChinthakuntaPanchayath, Halaharvi Mandal, AlurTaluk,Kurnool District, ...Petitioner 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary Home 2. The Director General of Police DGP, Andhra Pradesh, Police 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police DIG, Kurnool Range Kurnool, 4. The Superintendent of Police SP, Kurnool District, Kurnool, Andhra 5. The Deputy Superintendent of Police DSP, Pathikonda Sub-Division 6. The Station House Officer SHO, Alur Police Station, Alur, Kurnool District. 7. The Station House Officer SHO, Halaharvi Police Station, Halaharvi, 2 ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pleased to issue a Writ, Order, or Direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the Respondents in conducting an independent and impartial investigation pertaining to Crime No. 76/2024 dated 22.08.2024, Halaharvi Police station, Kurnool District, and their act of extorting a sum of 75,00,000/- by coercively pressurizing the petitioner to settle the said crime with the accused, as well as their failure to initiate independent and impartial departmental proceedings against the errant officers under Sections 7, 8, and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and thereby abruptly closing Crime No. 76/2024 dated 22.08.2024, Halaharvi Police station, Kurnool District dated 22.08.2024, upon the biased enquiry of Respondent No. 5 as highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of the petitioner's fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14,20,21 and principles of natural justice, Fair investigation is an integral part of the principles of natural justice, and Article 21 of the Constitution of India, being one of the essential facets of the right to life and personal liberty and consequently set aside the closure report in Crime No. 76/2024 dated 22.08.2024, Halaharvi Police station, Kurnool District dated 22.08.2024, and consequently direct the Respondents to conduct a fair, independent, and impartial investigation forthwith, as well as initiate appropriate departmental and criminal proceedings against the errant officers and also further direct the respondent- issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent Authorities, including the Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool District, to conduct an independent and impartial investigation into the allegations of misconduct, bribery, extortion, abuse of power, and collusion by the police officers named in the complaint, viz.. Cl SrinivasNayak, SI Chandra, Constable Veera Reddy, and DSP Pathikonda, under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended), BharatiyaNyayaSanhita, 2023, and other relevant 3 laws. a) Direct the Respondent Authorities to quash the biased and erroneous enquiry report subrriitted by the DSP Pathikondarecommending closure b) of FIR No. 76/2024 on false grounds of double jeopardy, and to reopen and expedite the investigation into the cheating case against E. Lokesh, ensuring no further shielding of the accused. c) Direct the refund of the 75,00,000 bribe amount extorted from the Petitioner's family, along with compensation of 72,00,000 for expenses incurred due to police misconduct, and award exemplary costs for the mental agony and harassment caused to the Petitioner. d) Direct the initiation of departmental proceedings and criminal prosecution against the errant officers for violations under Sections 7, 8, 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Sections 384, 385 (extortion), 120-B (conspiracy), and other relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code/BharatiyaNyayaSanhita, 2023. Direct the respondents not to pressurize the petitioner to settle the matter with accused, and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to suspend the closure report filed in Crime No. 76/2024 dated 22.08.2024, Halaharvi Police station, Kurnool District, which is an erroneous, misconceived and biased report filed by Respondent No. 5 in favour of the accused, ignoring the essential ingredients of the offence of cheating; and further direct reopening of Crime No. 76/2024 dated 22.08.2024,Halaharvi Police station, Kurnool dated 22.08.2024 and expedite the investigation therein, and also direct the Respondents to file an Action Taken Report, considering the complaints submitted by the Petitioner through the Public Grievance Redressal System (PGRS) portal dated 26.03.2025,12.05.2025, 13.06.2025 and 04.07.2025, with respect to the allegations of extortion and bribery misconduct pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: REGULAGADDA VENKATESH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME 4 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 23603 OF 2025 ORDER: “….declaring the inaction of the Respondents in conducting an independent and impartial investigation pertaining to Crime No. 76/2024 dated 22.08.2024, Halaharvi Police station, Kurnool District, and their act of extorting a sum of 75,00,000/- by coercively pressurizing the petitioner to settle the said crime with the accused, as well as their failure to initiate independent and impartial departmental proceedings against the errant officers under Sections 7, 8, and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and thereby abruptly closing Crime No. 76/2024 dated 22.08.2024, Halaharvi Police station, Kurnool District dated 22.08.2024, upon the biased enquiry of Respondent No. 5 as highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of the petitioner's fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14,20,21 and principles of natural justice, Fair investigation is an integral part of the principles of natural justice, and Article 21 of the Constitution of India, being one of the essential facets of the right to life and personal liberty and consequently set aside the closure report in Crime No. 76/2024 dated 22.08.2024, Halaharvi Police station, Kurnool District dated 22.08.2024, and consequently direct the Respondents to conduct a fair, independent, and impartial investigation forthwith, as well as initiate appropriate departmental and criminal proceedings against the errant officers and also further direct the respondent- issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent Authorities, including the Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool District, to conduct an independent and impartial investigation into the allegations of misconduct, bribery, extortion, abuse of power, and collusion by the police officers named in the complaint, viz.. Cl SrinivasNayak, SI Chandra, Constable Veera Reddy, and DSP Pathikonda, under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended), BharatiyaNyayaSanhita, 2023, and other relevant laws. a) Direct the Respondent Authorities to quash the biased and erroneous enquiry report subrriitted by the DSP Pathikonda recommending closure b) of FIR No. 76/2024 on false grounds of double jeopardy, and to reopen and expedite the investigation into the cheating case against E. Lokesh, ensuring no further shielding of the accused. c) Direct the refund of the 75,00,000 bribe amount extorted from the Petitioner's family, along with compensation of 72,00,000 for expenses incurred due to police misconduct, and award exemplary costs for the mental agony and harassment caused to the Petitioner. d) Direct the initiation of departmental proceedings and criminal prosecution against the errant officers for violations under Sections 7, 8, 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Sections 384, 385 (extortion), 120-B (conspiracy), and other relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code/BharatiyaNyayaSanhita, 2023. Direct the respondents not to pressurize the petitioner to settle the matter with accused, and to pass…” 5 02. Heard Sri Regulagadda Venkatesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. 03. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had sold 11,350 kilograms of dry chillies to the accused, one E. Lokesh, for a total consideration of ₹23,75,100/-, under an agreement that half of the amount would be paid immediately and the balance within fifteen days. According to the petitioner, the accused failed to pay any part of the sale consideration, thereby cheated him. On his complaint, Crime No.76/2024 was registered at Halaharvi Police Station for the offence under Section 420 IPC. The petitioner alleges that instead of conducting a fair and impartial investigation, the concerned police officials colluded with the accused and coercively pressurised him to settle the dispute. It is further alleged that the officials extorted a bribe amount from the petitioner’s family to the tune of ₹25,00,000/, and thereafter ensured that the matter was closed on untenable grounds. The petitioner contends that the enquiry conducted by the 5th respondent was biased. On these premises, the petitioner seeks directions for a fresh, independent and impartial investigation, refund of the extorted money with compensation, and appropriate departmental and criminal action against the errant officers. 04. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, submits that on the complaint of the petitioner, Crime No.76/2024 was registered under Section 420 IPC at Halaharvi Police Station. During the 6 course of investigation, it was found that an earlier FIR in Cr.No.09/2024 under Sections 406 and 420 IPC was already registered by the CCB, Tirupur, Tamil Nadu, in respect of the same transaction involving the sale of chillies by the petitioner and his uncle, to the accused, and in that case the accused had already been arrested and remanded. In view of the settled principle that multiple FIRs on the same set of facts are impermissible, the case in Cr.No.76/2024 was referred as “abuse of process of law” based on legal opinion rendered by the learned APP, JFCM, Alur. It is further submitted that the allegations of extortion and misconduct are false, baseless, and raised only after the closure of the case. 05. This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. It is not in dispute that two FIRs have been registered—one in Cr.No.09/2024 at CCB, Tirupur, Tamil Nadu, and another in Cr.No.76/2024 at Halaharvi Police Station, Kurnool District—arising out of the same transaction, against the same accused, and involving the same set of facts. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181, held that registration of multiple FIRs in respect of the same incident is not permissible and amounts to abuse of process of law. Similarly, in Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India, (2020) 14 SCC 12, it was reiterated that successive FIRs on the same cause of action are liable to be quashed. Further, in State of Haryana v. BhajanLal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down that where criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide or instituted with ulterior motive, such 7 proceedings amount to abuse of process of law and are liable to be interfered with. 06. In the present case, the record discloses that investigation into the transaction in question was already undertaken in Cr.No.09/2024 at Tirupur, where the accused was arrested and remanded. Once the same facts were already subject to investigation by the competent authority, registration of another FIR on identical facts in Cr.No.76/2024 is impermissible under law. Therefore, the closure of Crime No.76/2024 as “abuse of process of law” cannot be said to violate the right to fair investigation. On the contrary, entertaining successive FIRs on the same transaction would itself result in abuse of criminal process. The allegations of extortion and coercion remain wholly unsupported by material evidence. In these circumstances, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. 07. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 09.09.2025 KKV 8 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.23603 of 2025 Dated.09.09.2025 KKV 558