APHC010278592024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION No. 13978/2024 Between: 1. PEYYALA YACOB, S/O.(LATE) VEERANNA, HINDU, AGED 54 YEARS, CULTIVATION, DOOR NO.1-171, KALERU VILLAGE, KAPILESWARAPURAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, A.P.SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI. AMARAVARTHI. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ANDHRA PRADESH, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE ADDL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CRIME INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT (CID) MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. MUTYALA SUNIL KUMAR, S / O. SATY ANAR AYANA, , AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS. PERMANENT RESIDENT OF KOTHURU VILLAGE, RAMACHANDRAPURAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, R/O.L904. JADE WOOD DR, MORRIES VILLE, NEW CALLIFORNIA-27560, USA. 5. YEDLAPALLI PRANEETHA, D/O.SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS. PERMANENT RESIDENT OF FLAT NO. 101, DT FLOOR, VRK APARTMENT, KANURU, VIJAYAWADA RURAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT., R/O.L904. JADE WOOD DR, MORRIES VILLE, NEW CALLIFOMIA-27560, USA. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action on the part of Respondent no.l in issuing G.O.Rt.No.543, dt. 18-05-2023 to withdraw the prosecution against the Accused A.l to A.6 who were involved in Cr.No.54 of 2020 under for the offences U/Sec.420, 406, 120(B), r/w.34 of IPC and 2 Sec.3(l)(r)(s) of SC AND STs (POA) Act, 1989, 3 Sessions Case innow registered as the file of the Court of X Addl. though the said FIR SC/ST.SC No. 166 of 2021 on District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge For Trial Of SC AND STs (POA) Act cases, Rajamahendravaram, wherein Respondents 4 AND 5 are Accused Nos.l AND 2, pursuant to the Charge Sheet dt.Ol- 12-2020, without issuing any prior notice to the petitioner as he being Defacto-Complainant, and despite the writ petition in of 2022 filed by the petitioner for inaction ofWP.No.3619 respondent/ police in getting apprehending respondents 5 AND 6 nothing but highly arbitraiy, unlawful, and in Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the IS violation of India and Rules made there under, by Constitution consequently to quash the said G.O.Rt.no.543, dt. 18-05- 2023, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 to Grant Interim Orders of Suspension by Suspending the G.O.Rt.no.543, dt.18-05-2023 issued by Respondent no.l, pending disposal of Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P RAJESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. UMESH CHANDRA P V G 3. SPL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR CID 3 The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioner seeking indulgence of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “ .... to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action on the part of Respondent no.1 in issuing G.O.Rt.No.543, dt.18-05-2023 to withdraw the prosecution against the Accused 1 to 6 who were involved in Cr.No.54 of 2020 under for the offences U/Sec.420, 406, 120(B), r/w.34 of IPC and Sec.3(l)(r)(s) of SC AND STs (POA) Act, 1989, 3 Sessions Case now registered on the file of the Court of X Addl. though the said FIR SC/ST.SC No.166 of 2021 on District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge For Trial Of SC AND STs (POA) Act cases, Rajamahendravaram, wherein Respondents 4 and 5 are Accused 1 and 2, pursuant to the Charge Sheet dt.O1.12.2020, without issuing any prior notice to the petitioner as he being Defacto-Complainant, and despite the writ petition in WP No.3619 of 2020 filed by the petitioner for inaction of respondent/ police in getting apprehending respondents 5 and 6 is nothing but highly arbitraiy, unlawful, and in Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and Rules made there under, and consequently to quash the said G.O.Rt.No.543, dt.18.05.2023, and pass ....” Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, Sri A.Sai Rohith, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CID appearing for respondents 2 and 3 /State and Sri P.V.G.Umesh Chandra, learned counsel for respondent 4 and 5. Perused the material on record. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that Petitioner is the de facto Complainant in SC No.166 of 2021 on the file of the Court of X Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for Trial of SC & AST (PoA) Act Cases, Rajahmundry. During the pendency of the said case, Government issued G.O.Rt.No.543 Home (Legal.II) Department, dated 4 18.05.2023 instructing the Public Prosecutor/Assistant Public Prosecutor to file a petition under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974) for withdrawal of prosecution against the Accused in Crime No.54 of 2020 of CID Police Station, Mangalagiri. Learned Special Public Prosecutor on instructions would submit that in compliance of the said Government Order, an application is filed vide Crl.M.P.No.526 of 2024 before the Trial Court under Section 321 of the Code for withdrawal of prosecution against the Accused in the subject crime and the same is pending. Learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 would submit that this Writ Petition is premature since the application filed by the prosecution vide Crl.M.P.No.526 of 2024, is still pending before the trial Court. Learned counsel would further submit that if the petitioner could not succeed before the Trial Court, the revisional jurisdiction is always open to the petitioner. It is not necessary for the State to obtain permission of the de facto complainant for taking decision for withdrawal of a case. Further, in the light of the G.O.Ms.No.54 Law (LA &J – Home –Courts.B) Department, dated 30.03.2000, the Government is authorized to withdraw a case in the light of norms fixed in the said G.O. Learned counsel relied on the decision in State of U.P. v. Rakesh Kumar Verma1, wherein, the Learned Judge clearly established the scope of 1.(2022) 07 ILR A1018 5 Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Relevant portion extracted as under: 12. Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: provides for withdrawal from prosecution at the instance of the public prosecutor or Assistant public prosecutor. Indisputably therefor the consent of the Court is necessary. Application of mind on the part of the Court, therefore, is necessary in regard to the grounds for withdrawal from the prosecution in respect of any one or more of the offences for which the appellant is tried. The provisions of TADA could be attracted only in the event of one or the other of the four 'things' specified in Nalini (supra) is found applicable and not otherwise. The Review Committee made recommendations upon consideration of all relevant facts. It came to its opinion upon considering the materials on record. Its recommendations were based also upon the legality of the charges under TADA in the fact situation obtaining in each case. It came to the conclusion that in committing the purported offence, the appellant inter alia had no intention to strike terror in people or any section of the people and in fact the murder has been committed only in view of group rivalry and because the parties intended to take revenge, the provisions of the TADA should not have been invoked. 13. The Public Prosecutor in terms of the statutory scheme laid down under the Code of Criminal Procedure plays an important role. He is supposed to be an independent person. While filing such an application, the public prosecutor also is required to apply his own mind and the effect thereof on the society in the event such permission is granted." At this juncture, learned counsel for the Petitioner requested to dispose of this Writ Petition by giving liberty to the petitioner to raise his contentions before the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.526 of 2024. Considering the submissions and on perusal of the material on record, as rightly put by learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5, it appears, this Writ Petition is filed at premature stage since the Trial Court has not taken any decision in Crl.M.P.No.526 of 2024 which is filed by the State for withdrawal of the prosecution and it is pending before the Trial Court. 6 In that view, this Writ Petition is disposed of. The petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedy before the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.526 of 2024 filed seeking withdrawal of prosecution. Learned Trial Judge is directed to take an appropriate decision over the matter, after hearing both sides including the defacto-complainant, according to law. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Mjl/* 7 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Writ Petition No. 13978 of 2024 13.11.2025 Mjl /*