IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI m TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY is TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE O o PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2182 OF 2022 PRATAPA Between: 1. KomariMastanaiah, S/o K. Meeraih, Age. 58 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Sri Gowripuram Pattapupalem Village, H/o Ramateertham Village, Vidavalur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, A.P. 2. K. Pottaiah, S/o.Tirupoliah, Age. 58 years, Occ. Agriculture, Caste. Hindu R/o Sri Gowripuram Pattapupalem Village, Ramateertham Village, Vidavalur Mandal, SPSR Nellore Caste. Hindu District, A.P. 3. AvulaSudheer, S/o Late.AvulaChinnaKrishnaiah Age. 27 years, Occ. Village, H/o SPSR Nellore District, A.P Business, Caste. Hindu, R/o Sri Gowripuram Pattapupalem Ramateertham Village, Vidavalur Mandal 4. AvulaJayalakshmi, W/o Occ. Housewife, Caste. Hindu, R/o Sri Gowripuram Patfapupaiem Viilage, H/o Ramateertham Village. Vidavalur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, A.P Late.AvulaChinnaKrishnaiah, Age. 46 years. ...PETITI0NERS/A.1,A.3A4 & A.5 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court OF Andhra Pradesh. At. Amaravati Nellore District) (Through I.O, Vidavalur P.S., SPSR 2. Rebba Papa Rao, S/o Srinivasulu, Age. 53 years, Caste. Harijan Mala R/o Navalakula Garden, Nellore town, SPSR Nellore District, A.P ...RESPONDENT No.2/De-facto COMPLAINANTS 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 quash the FIR No. 7of 2022, dt. 20.01.2022on the file of Vidavalur police station, S.P.S.R. Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh, as against the petitioners/A.1, A.3, A.4 and A.5 in the interest of justice. 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 petitioners/A.1, A.3, A.4 and A.5 inFIR No. 7 of 2022, dt. 20.01.2022 including arrest on the file of Vidavalur police station, S.P.S.R. Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh, pending disposal of this Criminal Petition in the interest of justice. I.A. NO: 2 OF 2022 Between: 1. Rebba Papa Rao, S/o Srinivasulu, Age. 53 years. Caste. Harijan Mala, R/o Navalakula Garden, Nellore town, SPSR Nellore District, A.P ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT No.2 AND 1. KomariMastanaiah, S/o K. Meeraih, Age. 58 years, Occ. Agriculture, Caste. Hindu, R/o Sri Gowripuram Pattapupalem Village, H/o Ramateertham Village, Vidavalur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, A.P. 2. K. Pottaiah, S/o.Tirupoliah, Age. 58 years, Occ. Agriculture, Caste. Hindu R/o Sri Gowripuram Pattapupalem Village, Ramateertham Village, Vidavalur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, A.P. 3. AvulaSudheer, S/o Late.AvulaChinnaKrishnaiah, Age. 27 years, Occ. Business, Caste. Hindu, R/o Sri Gowripuram Pattapupalem Village, H/o Ramateertham Village, Vidavalur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, A.P 4. AvulaJayalakshmi, W/o Late.AvulaChinnaKrishnaiah, Age. 46 years, Occ. Housewife, Caste. Hindu, R/o Sri Gowripuram Pattapupalem Village, H/o Ramateertham Village, Vidavalur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, A.P ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 5. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court OF Andhra Pradesh, At. Amaravati (Through 1.0, Vidavalur P.S., SPSR Nellore District) ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT No.1 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 passed on 28.03.2022 in CrI.P No. 2182 of 2022. to vacate the interim orders I.A. NO: 1 OF 2024 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court OF Andhra Pradesh, At. Amaravati (Through the Station House Officer, Vidavalur P.S., SPSR Nellore District) ...PETITIONER/1®^ RESPONDENT AND 1- KomariMastanaiah, S/o K. Meeraih, Age. 58 years, Occ. Agriculture Caste. Hindu R/o Sri Gowripuram Pattapupalem Village, H/o Ramateertham Village, Vidavalur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, A.P. 2. K. Pottaiah, S/o.Tirupoliah, Age. 58 years, Occ. Agriculture, Caste. Hindu R/o Sri Gowripuram Pattapupalem Village, Ramateertham Village, Vidavalur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, A.P. 3. AvulaSudheer, S/o Late.AvulaChinnaKrishnaiah, Age. 27 years, Occ. Business, Caste. Hindu, R/o Sri Gowripuram Pattapupalem Village, H/o Ramateertham Village, Vidavalur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, A.P 4. AvulaJayalakshmi, W/o Late.AvulaChinnaKrishnaiah, Age. 46 years, Occ. Housewife, Caste. Hindu, R/o Sri Gowripuram Pattapupalem Village, H/o Ramateertham Village, Vidavalur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, A.P 5. Rebba Papa Rao, S/o Srinivasulu, Age. 53 years. Caste. Harijan Mala R/o Navalakula Garden, Nellore town, SPSR Nellore District, A.P ...PETITIONER/A.1A.3,A.4. AND A5 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order passed in CrI.P.No. 2182 of 2022 dt. 28-3-2022, in the interest of justice. This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri DEVINENI RADHA RANI ,Advocate for the Petitioners and the Public Prosecutor AP on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of SrLK.Mohan Rami Reddy Advocate for the Respondent No. The Court made the following ORDER : praying that in the APHC010123912022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2182/2022 Between: 1.KOMARIMASTANAIAH, S/0 K. MEERAIH, AGE 58 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, GOWRIPURAMPATTAPUPALEM VILLAGE, H/0 RAMATEERTHAM VILLAGE, VIDAVALUR MANUAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, A.P. 2.K. POTTAIAH, S/O.TIRUPOLIAH, AGRICULTURE, GOWRIPURAMPATTAPUPALEM VILLAGE, RAMATEERTHAM VILLAGE, VIDAVALUR MANUAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, A.P. 3.AVULASUDHEER, S/0 LATE.AVULACHINNAKRISHNAIAH, AGE. 27 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, CASTE. HINDU, R/0 SRI GOWRIPURAMPATTAPUPALEM VILLAGE, H/O RAMATEERTHAM VILLAGE, VIDAVALUR MANUAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, A.P 4.AVULAJAYALAKSHMI, W/0 LATE.AVULACHINNAKRISHNAIAH, AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, CASTE. HINDU, RIO SRI GOWRIPURAMPATTAPUPALEM VILLAGE, H/O RAMATEERTHAM VILLAGE, VIDAVALUR MANUAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, A.P ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) CASTE. HINDU R/0 SRI AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. HINDU CASTE. R/0 SRI AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PROSECUTOR, AMARAVATI (THROUGH I.O, VIDAVALUR P.S., SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT) 2.REBBA PAPA RAO, S/0 SRINIVASULU, AGE. 53 YEARS, CASTE. HARIJAN MALA, R/0 NAVALAKULA GARDEN, NELLORE TOWN, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, A.P PUBLIC HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1.DEVINENI RADHARANI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. K MOHAN RiAMi^REDDY The Court made the following: riMivi ORDER; The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973^ has been filed by the Petitioners /Accused Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in Crime No.7 of 2022 on the file of Vidavalur Police Station, SPSR Nellore District, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860^ and Section 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989^. 2. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Deshpande, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms.Devineni Radha Rani, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Sri C.Raghu, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri K.Mohan Rami Reddy, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Learned senior counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the allegations mentioned in the complaint do not attract the ingredients of the alleged offences against the Petitioners. Learned senior counsel would further submit that there are civil and criminal cases pending between the parties with regard to the subject property. It is submitted that the present complaint has been filed as a counterblast to the complaint lodged by Accused No.2 against Respondent No.2. Learned counsel would further submit that there is an inordinate delay of one year in lodging the complaint. It is submitted that the offence under SCST Act has not been made out against For short ‘Cr.P.C’ ^ For short ‘l.P.C’ ^ For short ‘SCSI Act’ the Petitioners. Learned counsel would submit that the present FIR has been registered without following the guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of U.P./. It is further submitted that the matter is purely civil in nature and the same was given the colour of criminal offence to settle the scores with the Petitioners. Learned counsel would finally submit that continuation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioners is an abuse of process of law. Hence, prayed for quashment of the same. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kishan Singh (dead) through L.Rs vs. Gurpal Singh and others®, Chandran Ratnaswami vs. K.C.Palanisamy and others®, Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand and others^, and Randheer Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others®. Per contra, learned senior counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that the allegations mentioned in the complaint amply disclose the commission of the alleged offences. Learned counsel would further submit that in view of the stay granted in this matter, no investigation has been done and it is not possible to ascertain the veracity of allegations at this stage and the application for quashing the criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., therefore, cannot sustain at this stage. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor supported the version of learned 4. 5. counsel for Respondent No.2. “ (2014) 2 see 1 ^ (2010) 8 see 775 " (2013) 6see 740 " (2013) 1 1 sec 673 * (2021) 14 sec 626 Point for Determination 6. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsels and on perusal of the material available on record, the point for determination that arises in this case is as follows: Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 in Crime No. 7 of 2022 on the file of Vidavalur Police Station, SPSR Nellore District? Determination by the Court 7. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so 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 jurisdiction is not functioning as a trial court, court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantia! justice, depending on the facts and 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. 8. The contents of the complaint, in brief, are as follows: In the year 2021, Respondent No.2 had taken the land of Onteru Kiran Kumar Yadav on lease for doing prawn culture. In that process, on 03.01.2021 at about 12.30 p.m., when Respondent No.2 went to the said land. Accused Nos.1 to 5 came there and questioned him about his place and 5 caste. When Respondent No.2 replied that he is the resident of Nellore Town and belongs to SC Community and he had taken the said land on lease from Onteru Kiran Kumar Yadav. On that, Accused Nos.1 and 3 abused him in the name of his caste, fisted on his chest and also threatened to kill him. result, he fell down. In the meanwhile. Accused Nos.2, 4 and 5 beat him with hands and kicked him with legs and also abused him in the name of his caste and threatened to kill him. Out of fear, when Respondent No.2 made a phone call to said Kiran Kumar, all the Accused fled away. Hence, the complaint. It is the contention of the Petitioners that, one P.Siva Mohan Reddy and his son are the owners of the subject lands and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The Petitioners herein were engaged by said Siva Mohan Reddy to look after the said lands as he is a resident of Hyderabad. While so, one Onteru Nagendra Kumar, Onteru KiranKumar and their sister G.Lakshmi Devi by impersonation and forgery, created false documents as if they have purchased the same from the predecessor in title of said Siva Mohan Reddy, and trespassed into the said lands with the help of their henchmen. As such, O.S.Nos.387, 393 of 2014 and O.S.No.19 of 2017 As a 9. on the file of the Court of V Additional District Judge, Nellore were filed by the wife of Siva Mohan Reddy and others for declaration of title and other relieves and the said suits are pending trial. Criminal complaints were also filed against said Onteru Nagendra Kumar, Kiran Kumar and their sister G.Lakahsmi Devi by Siva Mohan Reddy and his wife and the same were registered as FIR Nos.52 of 2015 and 22 of 2015. It is further contended that riNivi since the efforts of Onteru Nagendra Kumar and Kiran Kumar in trespassing into the lands belong to Siva Mohan Reddy were resisted by Accused No.2 ^ 6 they got registered a false complaint against Accused No.2 and others which was registered as FIR No.125 of 2014 and the Police after investigation referred the same as Civil in Nature and converted the same into a petty case. Against the same, protest petition was also filed and the same was also dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, Crl.R.C.No.440 of 2021 same is pending. Subsequently, Accused No.2 herein filed No.71 of 2018 against said Onteru Nagendra Kumar and was filed and the a case in Crime others as they attempted to kill him and as a counterblast to the said case. Crime No. 185 of 2021 was registered against Accused No.2 herein. It is further contended that, Onteru Nagendra Kumar played fraud the Electricity Department and obtained electricity connection by showing the land of P.Siva Mohan Reddy as his. land and by forging the signatures of the Fishers Development Officer. As such, the Fisheries Development Officer also gave a complaint against said Nagendra Kumar which was registered as FIR No.8 of 2022 on the file of Vidavalur Police Station. 10. on Further, it is evident from the Google Map that Petitioner/Accused No.4 herein was in Bangalore on the date of the alleged incident and Accused No.2 died on 09.09.2021 As seen from the above contentions and the material placed on record, it is clear that there are several civil and criminal 11. cases filed and pending between the parties with regard to the subject lands. The material would further disclose that. Rowdy Sheet has also been opened against said Onteru rNagendra Kumar vide Proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam City in C.No. 14/History Sheet/ACP- MWD/2015 as he involved in several criminal cases. As per the complaint, the alleged incident in the present case had taken place on 03.01.2021, whereas, the present complaint has been lodged on 20.01.2022 with an inordinate delay of more than one year. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is vivid that the present case has been lodged by Respondent No.2 at the instigation of said Onteru Nagendra Kumar and Kiran Kumar with false allegations to compromise the civil disputes with P.Siva Mohan Reddy. 12. In Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another®, the Hon’ble 7 Apex Court at Para Nos.14 and 21 held as under: “14. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or intimidation in “any place within public view”. What is to be regarded as “place in public view" had come up for consideration before this Court in the judgment reported as Swaran Singh & Ors. V. State through Standing Counsel & Ors.5. The Court had drawn distinction between the expression “public place” and “In any place within public view”. It was held that if an offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen 5 (2008) 8 SCC 435 by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. On the contrary, if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then it would not be an offence since it is not in the public view. The Court held as under: “28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the first informant, was insulted by Appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a “chamar”) when he stood near the car which was parked at the gate of the premises. In our opinion, this was certainly a place within public view, since the gate of a house is certainly a place within public view. It could have been a different matter had thh- alleged offence been committed inside a ’ 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 653 h"NIVI building, and also i/i/as not In the public view. However, if the offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road lane outside the boundary wall, the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. Also, even if the remark Is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view. We must, therefore, not confuse the expression "place within public view^’ with the expression "public place”. A place can be a private place but yet within the public view. On the other hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a place which is owned or leased by the Government or the municipality (or other local body) or gaon sabha instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons or private bodies. ” 21. In Gorige Pentaiah, one of the arguments raised was non disclosure of the caste of the accused but the facts were almost similar as there was civil dispute between parties pending and the allegation i/i/as that the accused has called abuses in the name of the caste of the victim. The High Court herein has misread the judgment of this Court in Ashabal Machindra Adhagale as it was not a case about the caste of the victim but the fact that the accused was belonging to upper caste was not mentioned in the FIR. The High Court of Bombay had quashed the proceedings for the reason that the caste of the accused was not mentioned in the FIR, therefore, the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act is not made out In an appeal against the decision of the Bombay High Court, this Court held that this will be the matter of investigation to whether the accused either belongs to or does not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, the High Court erred in law to dismiss the quashing petition relying upon later larger Bench judgment. ” Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of SCSI Act punishes a person who intentionally insults or intimidates and abuses any member of SC/ST by caste name in any place within a public view. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. State of Uttar Pradesh or or an as 13. 9 & Anr'^, wherein, emphasis is made on the necessity of “public view”, which is a basic ingredient to attract the offence, as follows; “17. The first question that calls for an answer is whether it was at a place within public view that the appellant hurled caste related abuses at the complainant with an intent to insult or intimidate with an intent to humiliate him. From the charge-sheet dated 21^‘January, 2016 filed by the I.O., It appears that the prosecution would seek to rely on the evidence of three witnesses to drive home the charge against the appellant of committing offences under sections 323 and 504, IPC and 3(1)(x), SC/ST Act. These three witnesses are none other than the complainant, his wife and their son. Neither the first F.I.R. nor the charge-sheet refers to the presence of a fifth individual (a member of the public) at the place of occurrence (apart from the appellant, the complainant, his wife and their son). Since the utterances, if any, made by the appellant were not "in any place within public view’’, the basic ingredient for attracting section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act was mIssIng/absent. We, therefore, hold that at the relevant point of time of the incident (of hurling of caste related abuse at the complainant by the appellant), no member of the public was present. ’’ (emphasis supplied^ In the case on hand, a fair look at the complaint would disclose that 14. there is no material to show that Petitioners insulted or intimidated and abused Respondent No.2 in the name of his caste within public view, which is the essential ingredient to attract the offence under Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of SCSI Act. The basic ingredient that the words were uttered “in any place within public view” is not made out. Therefore, it can be said that the allegations levelled against the Petitioners with regard to the offence under Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of SCST Act do not make out a prime facie case against them. Further, except mere allegation of beating and threatening against Respondent No.2, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 469 10 to attract the offences under there is no material against the Petitioners Sections 323 and 506 IPC as well. 1 Ibrahim and others Vs. State of Bihar and another'', 15. In Mohammad the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under; “This Court has time and again drawn attention to the gr-owing tendency of compiainants attempting to give the cioak of a criminai offence to matters which are essentiaiiy and purely civil in nature, obviously either to apply pressure on the accused, or out of enmity towards the accused, or to subject the accused to harassment. Criminal courts should ensure tha not used for settling scores or to proceedings before it are pressurise parties to settle civil disputes 12 the Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others 16. In Paramjeet Batra Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held as under. “7 While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice Whether a complaint discloses a depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are presenter not has judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the H^h Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of court. ” to be In the instant case, in view of the pendency of various civil suits with be said that the dispute of a 17. regard to the title over the subject property, it can civil nature has been given colour of a criminal offence. Further, it is found that 2009 (8) see 751 2013 (11) see 673 the criminal proceedings were maliciously initiated with an ulterior motive to settle the civil disputes. In view of the foregoing discussion and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgments referred to supra, it is suffice to conclude that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the material produced before this Court directly indicate mala tides in initiation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioners. Therefore, this Court is of the view that, it is a fit case to exercise the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners in the above 18. crime. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 in Crime No.7 of 2022 on the file of Vidavalur Police Station, SPSR Nellore District, for the offences under 19. Sections 323 and 506 read with 34 IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of SCSI Act, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- V.SAVITHRI GOWRI ASSISTANT ^GISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Station House Officer, Vidavalur P.S.,SPSR Nellore District. 2. One CC to SRI. DEVINENI RADHA RANI Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI. K MOHAN RAMI REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi [OUT] 5. THREE CD COPIES PNM HIGH COURT DATED:18/02/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.2182 of 2022 ^ 0 4 JUL 2025 I «o ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION