Date of reserved for orders : - Date of pronouncement : 22-09-2026 Date of uploading : 23-09-2026 APHC010464562026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3604] TUESDAY, THE 22nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7767/2026 Between: 1. HEERAPURAM FAYAZ BASHA ALIAS FAYAZ, ,S/O LATE NAZEER SAB, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARSR/O D.NO. 11/244, NASURUDDIN STREET,TADIPATRI TOWN, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT,ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, ,REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI.THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,TADIPATRI TOWN POLICE STATION,TADIPATRI, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT, 2. C SANKAR REDDY, , S/O. NOT KNOWN THE PETITIONER.AGED ABOUT NOT KNOWN THE PETITIONER,SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TADIPATRI TOWN POLICE STATION ANANTHAPUR 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 Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.314 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadipatri, Ananthapuramu District, insofar as the Petitioner/Accused No.4 herein is concerned 2 SUN, J Crlp_7767_2026 IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 Grant stay all further proceedings in C.C.No.314 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadipatri, Ananthapuramu District, including the appearance of the Petitioners, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. Sudharsana Reddy J Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 3 SUN, J Crlp_7767_2026 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM CRIMINAL PETITION No.7767 OF 2026 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/Accused No.4 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.314 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadipatri, Ananthapuramu District. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is thus: a) That Crime No.124 of 2019 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 188 and 171-C of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘Code’) and, after completion of investigation, a charge sheet was laid for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 171-C and 171-F of the Code. The offences relating to undue influence at an election are non-cognizable and, therefore, the police could not have registered the crime or undertaken investigation without obtaining an order from the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The proceedings under Section 188 of the Code are also unsustainable, as the order alleged to have been violated was passed by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Tadipatri, whereas the report was lodged by the Sub-Inspector of Police. Mere procession or rally by political party activists during an election period does not, by itself, constitute the offence of undue influence at an election and that no specific overt act has been attributed to the petitioner either in the First Information Report or in the charge sheet. b) The petitioner has been arrayed as Accused No.4 only on the allegation that he was present in the procession as a member of the Y.S.R. Congress Party and that there is no material disclosing the ingredients of the offences alleged 4 SUN, J Crlp_7767_2026 against him. Continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court and places reliance upon the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Others1. 3. Heard Sri P. Sudhakar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri J. Sudharsana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent- State. 4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would initially aware that without following the mandatory requirements, police not only conducted investigation but also filed charge sheet, did not consider the bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C, material does not show any prima facie case against the petitioner/ accused No.4, continuation of this proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of law. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the petitioner/ accused involved in several criminal cases, he is a habitual offender, material prima facie discloses involvement of the petitioner, triable points are involved and this is not a stage to quash the liability of the petitioner. 5. Perused the material placed on record, including the First Information Report, the material collected during investigation and the charge sheet. 6. As is evident from the record, initially Crime No.124 of 2019 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 188 and 171-C of the Code. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 171-C and 171-F of the Code. Section 171-C of the Code defines undue influence at elections. The offence contemplated by the said provision essentially concerns voluntary interference 1 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 5 SUN, J Crlp_7767_2026 with, or an attempt to interfere with, the free exercise of an electoral right. Section 171-F prescribes punishment for undue influence or personation at an election. 7. On a careful consideration of the allegations contained in the charge sheet and the material collected during investigation, there is no allegation of personation. The allegation, insofar as the election-related offence is concerned, is only one of undue influence. The offences alleged under Sections 171-C/171-F of the Code are non-cognizable. Therefore, the police could not have investigated the said non-cognizable offences without an order of the competent Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. Section 155(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires the police, on receiving information relating to a non-cognizable offence, to enter the substance of such information in the prescribed book and refer the informant to the Magistrate. Section 155(2) specifically prohibits investigation by a police officer into a non-cognizable case without an order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. In the present case, the material placed before this Court does not disclose that any such order was obtained from the competent Magistrate before registration of the crime and commencement of the investigation. Consequently, the investigation into the non-cognizable offences and the charge sheet filed pursuant thereto cannot be sustained in law. 9. Insofar as Section 188 of the Code is concerned, the prosecution alleges violation of an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Tadipatri, whereas, the report was lodged by the Sub-Inspector of Police. More importantly, the material placed before this Court does not disclose compliance with the statutory requirements governing prosecution for an offence under Section 188 of the Code. In the absence of the requisite complaint by the public servant concerned, the statutory bar contained in Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Code of 6 SUN, J Crlp_7767_2026 Criminal Procedure is attracted. Thus, the proceedings under Section 188 of the Code also cannot be permitted to continue in the present form. 10. The jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is extraordinary and has to be exercised sparingly and with due circumspection. At the same time, where the allegations in the First Information Report, charge sheet and the material accompanying them, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offences alleged, or where continuation of the proceedings is barred by law, the High Court is justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice. 11. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Others2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court illustrated the categories of cases in which the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court may appropriately be exercised. One such category is where the allegations, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. Another category is where the allegations disclose only a non-cognizable offence and the investigation has been undertaken without an order of the Magistrate under Section 155(2) of the Code. The principles are intended to prevent the criminal process from being used where the foundational legal requirements for its continuation are absent. 12. The investigation into the non-cognizable offences was undertaken without the requisite order of the Magistrate under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The proceedings under Section 188 of the Code are also confronted with the statutory requirement under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. These defects go to the root of the prosecution and cannot be treated as mere irregularities and as such, the contention of the learned counsel cannot be taken into consideration. 2 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 7 SUN, J Crlp_7767_2026 13. Therefore, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner/ accused No.4, on the basis of the material presently available, would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. The case falls within the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (supra), warranting exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 14. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/ accused No.4 alone in C.C.No.314 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadipatri, Ananthapuramu District, are hereby quashed. The learned Magistrate shall proceed with the case against the other accused, if any, in accordance with law and uninfluenced by any observations made herein insofar as they relate to the petitioner. As a sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ SUNITHA GANDHAM, J 22.09.2026 CJP/ knl