APHC010508252023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3548] TUESDAY, THE 21st DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7716/2023 Between: 1. DOGIPARTHY RAJA SEKHAR @ DOKIPARTHY RAJASEKHAR, S/O. PRABHAKAR RAO, 36 YEARS, VYSYA, R/O. FLAT NO. TF6, SAI TOWERS, RAJULA BAZAR, RAMAVARAPADU, VIJAYAWADA RURAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT NOW AT R/O. D.NO. 78-4-47, SRI VIJAY SAI VIHAR, FLAT NO. F-1, SYAMALA NAGAR, BESIDE OLD SOMALAMMA TEMPLE STREET, RAJATNAHENDRAVARAM. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH- INSPECTOR OF POLICE, I TOWN (L & O) POLICE STATION, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF AP 2. DISTRICT MEDICAL AND HEALTH OFFICER, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM ...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 PRC.No.92/2022 on the file of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District, registered in FIR in Crime No.428/2022 of I Town Law and Order Police Station Urban, Rajamahendravaram -U/Sec. 419, 420. 308. 304(ii) IPC and Section. 16 of Medical Establishment Act, 2002, and pass 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 stay all the further proceedings in PRC.No.92/2022 on the file of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District till the disposal of the criminal petition in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. DUGGIRALA SUBASH Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: Heard Mr.Duggirala Subash, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr.G.Neelothpal, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State/respondents. 2. Mr.Duggirala Subash, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.92 of 2022 on the file of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram, pursuant to the registration of FIR in Crime No. 428 of 2022 on the file of I Town Law and Order Police Station (Urban), Rajamahendravaram, registered for the offences punishable under Section 419 of IPC and Section 16 of Andhra Pradesh Clinical Establishments Act, 2002. 3. Mr.Duggirala Subash, learned counsel, would draw the attention of this Court to the legal infirmity committed by the complainant, while lodging the complaint before the Station House Officer on 16.11.2022. He would draw the attention of this Court to the relevant portion of the complaint, which reads as follows: “Further I have issued a notice to D.Rajasekhar S/o Prabhakararao to attend before me on 17.11.2022 at 11 am in my chamber to verify his educational qualification certificates as I was the District registering authority under clinical establishment act 2002.” 4. A mere reading of the complaint would indicate that the de facto complainant/complainant, who is the competent authority, has undertaken to conduct enquiry regarding the lapses on the part of the petitioner/accused for having allegedly contravened the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Allopathic Private Medical Care Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Rules, 2007. In the complaint, the complainant asked the accused to be present on 17.11.2022 at 11:00 A.M. in the chambers to verify the educational qualification certificates and he also fortifies that he is the competent authority under the A.P.Clinical Establishments Act, 2002. 4 5. Mr.Duggirala Subash, learned counsel, would submit that, when the complainant has exercised his authority under the Act and invited the petitioner to attend for the enquiry along with the certificates on 17.11.2022 at 11:00 A.M., the same authority, without waiting till 17.11.2022, hurriedly lodged the complaint on 16.11.2022 itself, which discloses that there is a total non-application of mind and gross violation of the principles of natural justice. 6. Mr.G.Neelothpal, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, would submit that though the complaint was lodged on 16.11.2022, the petitioner need not be given an opportunity, since, alternatively, ample hearing would be provided during the course of investigation and before filing of the charge sheet. 7. Here, it is no longer res integra that the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant should contain some genuine and bona fide allegations. At the threshold itself, the complainant himself caused a notice to the petitioner to the chambers to conduct enquiry, being the competent authority under the Rules, which, prima facie, gives the impression that the competent authority has put the enquiry in motion. Even without waiting till 17.11.2022 as called for, the complainant, being the Enquiry Officer/competent authority i.e., District Registering Authority, ought to have confined to his own commitment instead of rushing and filing a complaint before the Station House Officer, I Town Law and Order Police Station (Urban), Rajamahendravaram. Such a course of action appears to be inconsistent with the procedure contemplated under the Act and the Rules and also the facets of principles of natural justice, qua affording right to be heard. 8. There is a glaring legal lacuna in the said complaint, which is not trustworthy and not genuine and appears to have been lodged only to harass the petitioner, and is crippled with legal infirmities and patent illegalities. 9. The arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor does not hold water, because at the very threshold, when the complaint itself is bad, the consequential proceedings will also be bad, in view of the law laid down by 5 the Hon’ble Supreme Court that when the foundation is said to be bad, the structure erected thereon cannot be sustained. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and others vs. Ananta Saha and others1, while holding that if the initial action is not in consonance with law, the subsequent proceedings would not sanctify the same, at paragraphs 32 and 33, held as follows: “32. It is a settled legal proposition that if initial action is not in consonance with law, subsequent proceedings would not sanctify the same. In such a fact-situation, the legal maxim "sublato fundamento cadit opus" is applicable, meaning thereby, in case a foundation is removed, the superstructure falls. 33. In Badrinath v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu & Ors., this Court observed that once the basis of a proceeding is gone, all consequential acts, actions, orders would fall to the ground automatically and this principle of consequential order which is applicable to judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings is equally applicable to administrative orders.” 11. It is also needless to state that the law is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others2, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the parameters to be considered while examining the contents of a complaint and the circumstances under which further proceedings can be permitted to continue. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has enumerated seven conditions and the present case does not fall in any of the conditions, since the said action is totally manifested. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, at paragraph 102, held as follows: “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 1 (2011) 5 SCC 142 2 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 6 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 channelized 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 com-plaint 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. (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.” 7 12. In view of the above stated ratio, and as there is no element and bona fides in the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant, the said officer, being the disciplinary authority, and who need to adhere to the Rules framed by the State, has committed a grave error in lodging the complaint, which amounts to misuse of his official capacity as the District Registering Authority, as admitted by him in the complaint itself. 13. Resultantly, the Criminal Petition No.7716 of 2023 is allowed and the proceedings in P.R.C.No.92 of 2022 on the file of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram, are hereby quashed. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, J Date : 21-07-2026 BMS