Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Mr. Mannava Ravichandra, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 18 July, 2024
1
APHC010103972021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3396]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION No: 1760/2021
Between:
1. MR. MANNAVA RAVICHANDRA, S/O. MR.KOTESWARA RAO, AGED
ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. JANATHA PETA SOUTH,
KAVALI, NELLORE DIST.
2. MR. GUTTIKONDALA KISHORE BABU, S/O. MR.SUBBA RAO, AGED
ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. GAYATRI NAGAR, KAVALI,
NELLORE DIST.
3. MR. GUNTUPALLI RAJKUMAR CHOWDARY, S/O. MR.
VENKATESHWARULU CHOWDARY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC
BUSINESS, R/O.10-33-3A, CO-OPERATIVE COLONY, KAVALI,
NELLORE DIST.
4. MRS. GUNTUPALLI SRIDEVI CHOWDARY, W/O. MR. GUNTUPALLI
RAJKUMAR CHOWDARY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS,
R/O. 10-33-3A, CO-OPERATIVE COLONY, KAVALI, NELLORE DIST.
5. MR. GUNDALAPALLI SIVAJI, S/O. MR.SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42
YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. GAYATRI NAGAR, KAVALI, NELLORE
DIST.
6. MR. THARTAVARTHI VASU, S/O. MR.MALAKONDAIAH, AGED ABOUT
47 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. JANATHA PETA NORTH, KAVALI,
NELLORE DIST.
7. MR. KUNDURTHI KIRAN KUMAR, S/O. MR MASTHAN AGED ABOUT
43 YEARS, OCC EX COUNCILOR, R/O. INDIRA NAGAR, KAVALI,
NELLORE DIST.
8. MR. CHALAM CHARLA VASU, S/O. MR.KONDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59
YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. GIRIJANA COLONY, KAVALI, NELLORE
DIST.
9. MR. MOGILI KALLAIAH, S/O. MR.BALAKOTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56
YEARS, OCC STATE PARTY SECRETARY R/O. VENGALA RAO
NAGAR, KAVALI, NELLORE DIST.
10. MR. DAVULURI DEVA KUMAR, S/O. MR.NAGA BHUSHANAM, AGED
ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. ARUNDATHIPALEM,
KAVALI, NELLORE DIST.
11. MR. MANCHALA PRASAD, S/O. MR VENKATESHWARLU NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. VYKUNTA PURAM,
2
KAVALI, NELLORE DIST.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT
AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE SUBINSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAVALI II TOWN POLICE STATION,
KAVALI, SRI POTTI SRI RAMULU NELLORE DISTRICT
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. UNNAM SRAVAN KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 has been filed, by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 11, seeking quashment of the proceedings against them in S.T.C.No.321 of 2020 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kavali for the offences under Sections 188, 269 and 271 of Indian Penal Code2.
2. Heard Sri Unnam Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners and acceded to, by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that the subject matter of this Criminal Petition is squarely covered by the Order passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.459 of 2020, dated 09.11.2023, wherein this Court held as follows.
1 In short 'CrPC' 2 In short 'IPC' 3 "10. It is apt to mention that there is a statutory bar under Section 194 (1) (a) (1) Cr.P.C. to take cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC basing on the charge sheet. It is beneficial to extract Section 195 (1) (a) (1) of Cr.P.C.
"Section 195(1) in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (1) No Court shall take cognizance-
(a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ), or
(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;
(b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ), namely, sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or
(ii) of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub- clause (i) or sub- clause (ii), except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate."
11. In the light of the language employed in the legal provisions referred supra, it is vivid that there is a clear bar under Section 195 (1) (a) (1) of Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance of any offences punishable under Sections 172 to 188 of IPC, except on the complaint, in writing, of the Public Servant concerned or of some other Public Servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. At this juncture, it is relevant to understand what is complaint as per the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 2 (d) of Cr.P.C. is hereby extracted for quick reference:
"(d) " complaint" means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, 4 that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report.
Explanation.- A report made by a police officer in a case which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non- cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint; and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant;"
12. Admittedly, in the present case, without there being a complaint by the authority concerned, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC basing on a charge sheet filed by the police, which is in utter violation of Section 195 1 (a) (1) of Cr.P.C.
13. In catena of decisions, a coordinate bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.4633 of 2023, Crl.P.No.5323 of 2009, 3670 of 2013, 8597 of 2018 and 9236 of 2018 clearly held that the Police are not empowered to investigate into the offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC and file charge sheet basing on a police report. In the case on hand, since the Court has taken cognizance of the offence based on the charge sheet filed by the Police, the procedure adopted is not in accordance with law, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner for the offence under Section 188 of IPC would amount of abuse of process of the Court."
4. It is settled law that the offence under Section 188 of IPC has to be taken cognizance upon a complaint in writing by the concerned Public Servant, but, in the instant case, the complainant is the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kavali II Town Police Station, Kavali, who cannot be said to be a 'public servant' within the meaning of Section 195(1) Cr.P.C. Therefore, in view of the bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C., the offence under Section 188 of IPC would not attract to the case on hand and the prosecution for the same cannot be sustained against the Petitioners.
5. Insofar as the offences punishable under Sections 269 and 271 IPC are concerned, except the allegation that on 13.06.2020 at about 6.50 p.m., Petitioners, who belong to Telugu Desam Party were gathered at the RTC Bus Stand, Kavali Town by carrying flame torches and protested the arrest of TDP 5 leader Sri Atchama Naidu and there by violated the orders promulgated by the Government, there is no iota of evidence to show that the Petitioners unlawfully or negligently gathered, which would cause spreading of Corona virus at the relevant time and thereby disobeyed the orders of the District Collector, Nellore. A bald statement made by the informant shorn of any details. Even if the entire accusations made against the Petitioners are taken as true and correct, no prima facie case for the offence punishable under Sections 269 and 271 IPC has been made out against the Petitioners. Hence, continuation of the impugned proceedings against the Petitioners for the offences under Sections 188, 269 and 271 IPC is nothing but an abuse of process of Court.
6. Hence, following the said Order passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No. 459 of 2020, dated 09.11.2023, and taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this criminal petition is allowed by quashing the proceedings against the Petitioners in S.T.C.No.321 of 2020 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kavali, for the offence under Sections 188, 269 and 271 IPC.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:18.07.2024 Dinesh 6 HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Criminal Petition No: 1760 of 2021 Dt.18.07.2024 Dinesh