APHC010117222026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1803/2026 Between: 1. MONDITOKA JAGAN MOHANARAO, S/O KRISHNA,AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,OCC EX- MEMBER OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY EX-MLA,R/O 8-29D, NEAR GEETHA MANDIRAM,NANDIGAMA MANDAL, NANDIGAMA, NTR DISTRICT. 521185 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER,IBRAHIMPATNAM POLICE STATION, NTR COMMISSIONERATE,REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI. 2. R VENKATESWARARAO, S/O UNKNOAVN TO THE PETITIONER,OCC POLICE HC, IBRAHIMPATNAM POLICE STATION,R/OLBRAHIMPATNAM, NTR DISTRICT.521456 ...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 pleased to quash the FIR.No.67/2026 on the file of the Ibrahimpatnam Police Station, NTR Commissionerate to the extent of petitioner is concemedin the interest of justice. 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 2 Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the FIR and copy of the Complaint in FIR.No.67/2026 on the file of the Ibrahimpatnam Police Station, NTR Commissionerate for time being period in the interest of Justice. IA NO: 2 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 to grant stay of all further proceedings in FIR.No.67/2026 on the file of the Ibrahimpatnam Police Station, NTR Commissionerate to the extent of petitioner is concemed pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition in the interest of Justice. Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. VELADI SAI SRI HARSHA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS, 2023’) has been filed, by the Petitioner/Accused No.2, seeking quashment of the proceedings against him in Cr.No.67 of 2026 of Ibrahimpatnam Police Station, NTR Commissionerate, registered for the offence under Section 170 of BNSS, 2023. 2. The facts of the case as per the occurrence report are that in view of the provocative statements made by the Ex-MLAs of the YSRCP Party, to observe the law and order around the vicinity, on 01.02.2026 at about 19.20 hours, the Head Constable of Ibrahimpatnam Police Station, Vijayawada City conducted vehicle check at West Ibrahimpatnam, along with the police staff and observed that the YSRCP leaders were proceeding from Nandigama towards Ibrahimpatnam to visit the house of Sri Jogi Ramesh and allegedly provoked the TDP leaders. In order to prevent the untoward incident and to maintain law and order, took custody of A.1 to A.4 and shifted them to Machavaram Police Station. Due to non-availability of the mediators at that point of time, the Station House Officer, drafted the occurrence report on 01.02.2026 itself and registered the same as a case in Crime No.67 of 2026 of Ibrahimpatnam Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 170 BNSS, 2023. 3. Sri Veladi Sai Sri Harsha, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent State. Perused the material on record. 4 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner herein is arrayed as A.2 in the said Crime and that the Petitioner is the Ex-MLA and he is travelling to the house of the Former Minister and the Petitioner neither provoked anybody nor created any law and order problem. Learned counsel would further submit that the present crime is registered basing on the occurrence report drafted by the Police Officer and registered the same as a crime for the offence punishable under Section 170 BNSS, 2023 and there cannot be any crime for the offence under Section 170 of BNSS, 2023 and it is only a prevention from detention. Further, there is no iota of material in respect of the essential ingredients for the alleged offence and registration of crime based on the occurrence report is abuse of process of law. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on instructions would submit that the Investigating Officers are taking steps to close the crime. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 6. 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 court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial 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. 7. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana 5 and others v. Bhajanlal and others1 is considered as the guiding torch in the application of Section 482 IPC. At paras 102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt out as follows; “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are 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. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 1 AIR 1992 SC 604 6 (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” (emphasis supplied) 8. The inherent powers of the High Court should be sparingly used. Only when the Court comes to the conclusion that there would be manifest injustice or there would be abuse of the process of the court if such power is not exercised, Court would quash the proceedings. 9. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, now it is to be relevant to scrutinize the facts of the case whether the provisions of the Section 170 of BNSS, 20203. Section 170 BNSS, 2023: Arrest to prevent commission of cognizable offences. (1) A police officer knowing of a design to commit any cognizable offence may arrest, without orders from a Magistrate and without a warrant, the person so designing, if it appears to such officer that the commission of the offence cannot be otherwise prevented. (2) No person arrested under sub-section (1) shall be detained in custody for a period exceeding twenty-four hours from the time of his arrest unless his further detention is required or authorised under any other provisions of this Sanhita or of any other law for the time being in force. (3) No person arrested under sub-section (1) shall be detained in custody for a period exceeding twenty-four hours from the time of his arrest unless his further detention is required or authorised under any other provisions of this Sanhita or of any other law for the time being in force. 7 10. Section 151 Cr.P.C. is correlated to Section 170 BNSS, 2023. The object of the Section is of preventive justice and not punitive and should only be invoked when there is an imminent danger to peace or likelihood of breach of peace under Section 107 Cr.P.C. An arrest can be supported when the person to be arrested designs to commit a cognizable offence. If a proceeding appears to be absolutely necessary to deal with the threatened apprehension of breach of peace, it is incumbent upon the authority concerned to take prompt action. 11. A mere perusal of Section 151 of Cr.P.C. makes it clear that the conditions under which a Police Officer may arrest a person without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant in case, the Police Officer came to know of a design of the person concerned to commit any cognizable offence. A further condition for the exercise of such power, which must also be fulfilled, is that the arrest should be made only if it appears to the police officer concerned that the commission of the offence cannot be otherwise prevented. The Section, therefore, expressly lays down the requirements for exercise of the power to arrest without an order from a Magistrate and without warrant. If these conditions are not fulfilled and, a person is arrested under this Section, the arresting authority may be exposed to proceedings under the law for violating the fundamental rights inherent in Articles 21 and 22 of Constitution. 12. In the instant case, even as per the occurrence report, it is only the apprehension of the Police Officer that the Petitioner/A.2 who is travelling along with other accused from Nandigama towards Ibrahimpatnam to visit the house of the Ex- MLA may cause any law and order problem. 8 13. During the course of hearing, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor consented that the concerned Police are taking steps to close the crime against the Petitioner. 14. In view of the above discussion, it is settled law that when the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint or in the statements, permitting such a complaint to continue and compelling the Petitioner/Accused to face the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that it is a fit case to exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/A.2. 15. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/A.2 in Crime No.67 of 2026 of Ibrahimpatnam Police Station, NTR Commissionerate, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA 31.03.2026 Mjl/* 9 HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Criminal Petition No.1803 of 2026 31.03.2026 Mjl/*