APHC010514092021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7498/2021 Between: 1.P.ASHOK GAJAPATHI RAJU, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI. P.V.G. RAJU, PRESIDENT/CHAIRMAN. MAHARAJAH ALAK NARAYAN SOCIETY OF ARTS AND SCIENCE, (MANSAS) TRUST, FORT VIZIANGARAM, RESIDING AT NO. 5, BUNGALOW, CANTONMENT, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY S.H.O, NELLIMARLA P.S., VIZIANAGARAM DIST., REP. THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI. 2.D V V PRASADARAO, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O LATE APPARAO, OCC. GOVT. OFFICIAL NON-GAZETTED, R/O ASST. COMMISSIONER AND EXECUTIVE OFFICER, RAMATHIRDHAM TEMPLE, RAMATHIRDHAM VILLAGE, NELLIMARLA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.N ASHWANI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 2 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.,’) seeking quashment of the proceedings in FIR.No.279 of 2021 of Nellimarla Police Station, Vizianagaram wherein the Petitioner has been arrayed as Accused No.1. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. Sri N.Ashwani Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the allegations contained in the FIR No.279 of 2021, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the commission of any offence under Sections 427, 353 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C.,’). It is urged that the essential ingredients of mischief causing damage, or assault/criminal force against a public servant in discharge of his duty, are conspicuously absent. The complaint is vague, general, and fails to specify any act of criminal force or obstruction of lawful duty. The invocation of Section 34 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ is equally untenable, as no common intention or concerted action is alleged against the Petitioner. Thus, the registration of the FIR itself amounts to a clear abuse of process of law. 4. It is further submitted that the FIR is a product of mala fide intent, orchestrated by the State Government to harass and humiliate the Petitioner. 3 The Petitioner, a septuagenarian and a respected public figure with an unblemished record, has previously been reinstated by this Court as Founder Family Member and Chairman of the Trust Board after wrongful removal by the Government. The State, being indisposed towards the Petitioner, has sought to embroil him in successive criminal proceedings, including FIR No.509 of 2021, which was stayed by this Court. The present FIR is yet another attempt to inflict reputational damage and cause irreparable prejudice to the Petitioner. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that continuation of proceedings under the impugned FIR would amount to perpetuating injustice and harassment. The allegations, even if accepted in entirety, do not constitute the alleged offences, and the process of criminal law cannot be permitted to be misused for collateral purposes and urged to allow the Petition. 6. Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the complaint lodged by Respondent No.2 is itself vague, lacking in specific details or clear narration of any act that would constitute an offence under Sections 427, 353 read with 34 of ‘the I.P.C.’ The allegations are general in nature, without identifying the precise manner in which mischief was committed or how criminal force was used against a public servant in discharge of his duty. The complaint does not disclose the official duty allegedly obstructed, nor does it establish any common intention among the accused. In such circumstances, the FIR rests on uncertain and imprecise 4 averments, which cannot sustain criminal prosecution, and therefore the complaint is liable to be treated as vague and untenable in law. 7. On perusal of the record, the Respondent No.2 submitted a letter to the Circle Inspector, Bhogapuram Police Station that upon careful reconsideration of the facts, the complaint originally lodged against the Petitioner was based on misrepresentation and false inputs provided to the Executive Officer at that time. It is candidly admitted that the Petitioner, in his capacity as Chairman, had only expressed his discomfort over lapses in the performance of rituals during the temple inauguration ceremony, and no act amounting to mischief or obstruction of lawful duty was ever committed. The allegations were thus unfounded, absurd, and motivated. Respondent No.2 has formally withdrawn the complaint, requesting closure of all connected proceedings. This unequivocal withdrawal demonstrates that the FIR rests on false premises and cannot be sustained, thereby necessitating its closure. 8. In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the categorical withdrawal of the complaint by Respondent No.2, and the admitted absence of ingredients necessary to constitute offences under Sections 427, 353 read with 34 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ this Court is of the opinion that the continuation of proceedings in FIR No.279 of 2021 amounts to abuse of process of law. The allegations being vague, mala fide, and unsupported by any material particulars. 5 9. Therefore, the Criminal Petition is allowed, consequently, FIR.No.279 of 2021 of Nellimarla Police Station, Vizianagaram is hereby quashed. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dated: 06.02.2026 VTS