APHC010119852026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 6534/2026 Between: ALLA RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, S/O LATE ALLA DASARADHARAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC FORMER LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY MEMBER, R/O MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, AP SECRETARIATE, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522238. 2. THE CRIME INVESTIGATION DEPTARTMENT CID, ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, EOW-II, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522302. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. JADA SRAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “.... a Writ Order or direction particularly, one like Writ of Prohibition seeking stay of all further proceedings including taking cognizance or entertaining any final report in respect of Crime No. 16/2022, registered upon my report for the offences 2 punishable under Sections 120(B), 420, 34, 35, 36, 37, 166, 167 and 217 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (referred to as 'I.P.C.') and Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(l)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (referred to as 'P.C. Act'), on the file of the Station House Officer, CID Police Station, Amaravathi, Mangalagiri, Guntur District as the case is exclusively dealt by the Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected MPs and MLAs at Vijayawada in strict compliance with the binding directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India as due to dealing the case by a court SPL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF SPE AND ACB CASES CUM-III ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE VIJAYAWADA without jurisdiction is infringing the enforcement of the Petitioner's fundamental right if free and fair trail guaranteed under Articles 14,15,16 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, consequently transfer the case from THE COURT OF SPL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF SPE ACB CASES CUM-III ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE VIJAYAWADA to court having jurisdiction to try the offences.” 2. Upon hearing the submissions of both parties, the present petition is hereby disposed of, at the stage of admission. 3. Heard Sri Jada Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Sri Mukul Rohatgi and Sri Anurag Ahluwalia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms.A.Jayanthi, learned Government Pleader for Home and Sri C.Panini Somayaji, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for CID. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that Crime No.16 of 2022, registered by CID, Andhra Pradesh, involves serious allegations under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 relating to decisions taken between 2014–2019 concerning the Amaravati Capital City project. In the present crime, charge sheet is also filed in February 2024 and the case is now at the stage of trial. 3 Learned counsel would further submit that, the principal Accused include sitting and former MLAs, including a sitting Chief Minister and a Minister, come under the special framework mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India1 for expeditious trial of criminal cases against involving sitting and former M.Ps and M.L.As. The Supreme Court has clearly directed that such cases be tried exclusively by designated MP/MLA Special Courts, with priority, continuity, and time-bound disposal of the cases in order to preserve public confidence in democratic institutions. It is further contended that, State of Andhra Pradesh has already designated a Special Court at Vijayawada for this purpose with statewide jurisdiction vide G.O.Rt.No.250, dated 03.04.2018. Therefore, the present case ought to be tried only by the said court. However, the case is being entertained by the Court of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum- III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, which is not the designated MP/MLA Court, in clear deviation from the binding directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Learned counsel further argues that such deviation undermines the uniform framework envisaged by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, violates Articles 14 and 21 by defeating expeditious and consistent trial. It is further submitted that the present petition raises a limited jurisdictional 1 (2024) 1 SCC 185 4 issue and seeks only enforcement of the binding legal mandate. A writ of prohibition and mandamus is therefore maintainable to restrain the non- designated court from proceeding and to ensure that the case is tried by the competent MP/MLA Special Court. 5. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No.1 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for CID, in unison, would submit that the writ petition is premature and misconceived. It is contended that trial commences only upon framing of charges, and not with the filing of the charge sheet. As charges have not yet been framed, the present case is still at the stage of inquiry, and the question of exclusive trial before the MP/MLA Special Court does not arise at this stage. It is further submitted that the directions in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay’s case referred to supra are intended to ensure expeditious disposal and cannot be construed to invalidate proceedings before a competent Special Court having jurisdiction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, before commencement of trial. Since a writ of prohibition lies only in cases of clear lack of jurisdiction, and such lack is absent here, the petition is liable to be dismissed. In support of their contentions, reliance has been placed on the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Chintamaneni Prabhakara Rao @ Prakhakar vs. S.I of Police, Pedapadu Police Station, West Godavari District and another2. 2 2019 SCC OnLine AP 339 5 6. Considering the submissions made on either side and on perusal of the material placed on record, this Court finds that the crucial issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is, whether the present case can be said to have reached the stage of “trial” so as to mandatorily attract the jurisdiction of the designated MP/MLA Special Court. 7. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab3, wherein, the Court has authoritatively defined the distinction between “inquiry” and “trial”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter alia, held that proceedings prior to the framing of charges fall within the ambit of “inquiry”, and that the “trial” commences only upon the framing of charges. It was further clarified that the stage from filing of charge sheet till framing of charge is only an inquiry and the trial begins only after charges are framed and the court proceeds to record evidence. 8. In the present case, though it is not in dispute that a charge sheet has been filed in February 2024, there is no material placed before this Court to demonstrate that charges have been framed. In the absence of such a development, this Court is constrained to hold that the proceedings are still at the stage of inquiry and have not yet turned into trial. In that view of the matter, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay’s case referred to supra is, at 3 (2014) 3 SCC 92 6 this stage, premature. The said directions are intended to ensure expeditious and effective trial of criminal cases against legislators; however, they cannot be construed in a manner so as to interdict proceedings before a competent court of jurisdiction at a stage of pre- commencement of trial. 9. As was categorically held by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Chintamaneni Prabhakar’s case referred to supra, G.O.Rtc.No.250 would show that only power of trial of criminal cases relating to elected MPs and MLAs conferred on the designated Courts, but it would not appear pre-trial procedure is dispensed with. Therefore, the designated Court comes into picture only from the stage of trial but not before and pre- trial procedure should be followed in the concerned courts as per the provisions of Cr.P.C and other relevant laws. 10. It is also pertinent to note that the Court of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, is a Court of competent jurisdiction under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and allied statutes. The Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any inherent lack of jurisdiction in the said court so as to warrant issuance of a writ of prohibition. It is settled law that a writ of prohibition would lie only in cases where a subordinate court acts without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction. In the present case, such a situation is not made out. On the contrary, interference at this stage, on a 7 technical plea, would only result in delay of proceedings, thereby defeating the very object of expeditious disposal of the case. In view of the law laid down in Hardeep Singh’s case and Chintamaneni Prabhakar’s case (supra), and in the absence of commencement of trial by way of framing of charges, this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Dinesh 30.03.2026 8 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Writ Petition No.6534 of 2026 30.03.2026 Dinesh