APHC010106182025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION No:2273 OF 2025 Between: Mr.karri Srinivas Rao @ Tadichetla Srinu, @ Karri Ramanababu, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: Sri Nani Babu Robba Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): Ld. Public Prosecutor The Court made the following order: 1. This criminal petition is filed under section 528 of B.N.S.S. seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.44 of 2025 of Narsipatnam town police station, Anakapalli District, registered for the alleged offence under Sections 221, 351(3), 352, 356(2) read with Section 3(5) of B.N.S. -2- CRL.P. No.2273 of 2025 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was arraigned as A.1 in the crime No.44 of 2025. It is alleged in the complaint that the petitioner had indulged in obstructing the official duties of revenue and irrigation officers when they attempted to demolish the building. It is also alleged that the petitioner indulged in using abusive language against the politicians and that the petitioner has also indulged in creating an atmosphere of commotion. The police have registered a case on the strength of the complaint of one D.Madhubabu. The learned counsel further submits that the said D.Madhu Babu is not a public servant in the irrigation or revenue departments. It is also submitted that when the revenue authorities intended to demolish the building belonging to the petitioner, the brother of the petitioner filed W.P. No.4963 of 2025 and moved house motion. This Court came to the rescue of the writ petitioner therein and suspended the impugned notice in the writ petition. The said writ petition is pending for consideration. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though this Court has directed the respondents not to demolish the construction, the authorities have demolished the portion of the compound wall. It is submitted that on the strength of the complaint -3- CRL.P. No.2273 of 2025 of a third party, the police could not have registered a case under Section 221 of B.N.S. The other alleged offences are also not attracted. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the police pressurizing the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition under the guise of summoning him to the police station in a case registered against him. It is submitted that he was put to hardship on the basis of the false complaint registered against him. 6. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner, with the motive of defaming or degrading the politician, has resorted to using abusive language in public and that the same would lead to disturbance and unrest in society. 7. As the de facto complainant is not a public servant, the police ought not to have registered a case under Section 221 of B.N.S. Insofar as the other offences are concerned, the station house officer, Narsipatnam town police station, Anakapalli district, shall follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 35 of B.N.S.S. 8. With these observations, the criminal petition is disposed off. 9. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N BV