Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Pita Murali Rama Krishna vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 26 November, 2025
APHC010624762025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3521]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12002/2025
Between:
1.PITA MURALI RAMA KRISHNA, S/O BABU RAO, 2-17-22/1,
KONDAVARIVEEDHI,ALCOT GARDENS, RAJAHMUNDRY URBAN.
EAST GODAVARI, ANDHRA PRADESH-533101.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF ANDHRA
PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI THROUGH THESTATION HOUSE
OFFICER, PRAKASH NAGAR POLICE STATION. EAST GODAVARI
DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
2.KOWMARI RAMA SHARMAPUTSA, S/O PUTSA,
RAJA,MAHEDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI, ANDHRA PRADESH.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1.REGULAGADDA VENKATESH
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
2
The present Criminal Petition has been instituted under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity 'the BNSS') by the Petitioner/Accused No.27, seeking quashment of FIR No.540 of 2025 dated 13.11.2025, registered at Rajahmundry III Town Police Station, East Godavari District. The said FIR alleges that the Petitioner has committed offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 352, and 192 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity 'the BNS'), as well as under
Section 30A of the Police Act, 1861 (for brevity 'the Act').
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 12.11.2025 at about 11:30 AM near Lalitha Jewellery, Kambalacheruvu, Rajamahendravaram, the accused persons, led by Margani Bharat Ram, Ex‑MP, wrongfully restrained the public and disturbed peace by staging an unauthorized protest and bike rally of about 50 motorcycles, carrying YSRCP flags and placards, raising slogans through loud sound systems, and obstructing the road without permission in violation of Section 30 of 'the Act'; certain placards contained objectionable and derogatory material against the Hon'ble Chief Minister and Ministers of Andhra Pradesh, thereby amounting to intentional insult and wanton provocation with intent to cause breach of peace and riot; the complainant, Pasupuleti Satyanarayana Murthy, Ward Revenue Secretary, lodged the report on 13.11.2025 at 08:00 PM naming 27 individuals as participants in the unlawful assembly which proceeded from Lalitha Jewellery to the RDO Office, Rajamahendravaram, and sought appropriate legal action against them. 3
3. Sri Regulagadda Venkatesh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the offences alleged in FIR No.540/2025 registered at Rajahmundry III Town Police are wholly misconceived, as the essential ingredients of Sections 126(2), 352, 192 read with 3(5) of 'the BNS', and Section 30-A of 'the Act', are not made out. The FIR does not disclose any act of wrongful restraint, obstruction, assault, or use of criminal force. No allegation of physical contact, threat, or overt act is attributed to the petitioners, and mere presence in a political protest cannot constitute criminal force or wrongful restraint. Similarly, the invocation of Section 192 of 'the BNS' is baseless, as there is no allegation of fabrication of evidence, false entry, or manipulation of records.
The FIR is silent on any shared intention or concerted plan, rendering Section 3(5) inapplicable. Further, Section 30-A of 'the Act' cannot stand in absence of any specific order issued under Section 30 of 'the Act' and its alleged violation.
4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further contends that the FIR is motivated, vindictive, and politically driven, filed by a rival political functionary to target opponents. The allegations are omnibus in nature, listing several names without attributing specific roles or acts to any individual. The FIR itself admits that the protest was political in nature, yet fails to mention a single victim, witness, or instance of injury, damage, or obstruction. Democratic protests, slogan-shouting, and political gatherings, unless accompanied by violence or property damage, do not constitute criminal offences, as repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The mechanical application of 4 penal provisions without factual foundation demonstrates mala fide intent and abuse of process.
5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the present case squarely falls within the categories laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal1, where FIRs that are absurd, motivated, or fail to disclose any offence are liable to be quashed under Section 482 of 'the Cr.P.C.' The continuation of proceedings against the petitioners amounts to violation of their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. In the absence of any material disclosing cognizable offences, the FIR and consequential proceedings are unsustainable in law and deserve to be quashed.
6. Per contra, Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the allegations in FIR No.540/2025 clearly disclose cognizable offences and cannot be brushed aside as political vendetta. The material on record shows that the petitioners, along with several others, organized a rally with bikes, flags, placards, and derogatory imagery, thereby creating obstruction and disturbance in a public place. Such conduct squarely attracts Section 126(2) of 'the BNS' as it amounts to wrongful restraint and obstruction of public movement, while the presence of a large group shouting slogans and displaying provocative imagery constitutes use of criminal force under Section 352 of 'the BNS.' Further, the collective participation of the petitioners and their associates demonstrates common intention under Section 3(5) of 'the BNS.' The FIR also alleges disobedience of lawful directions issued by the 1 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 5 police, thereby invoking Section 30-A of 'the Act.' It is contended that the petitioners cannot seek quashing merely on the ground of political rivalry, as the allegations disclose sufficient ingredients of the offences, and the truth of the complaint must be tested during investigation and trial, not at the threshold and it is urged that the petition be dismissed.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.
8. As seen from the record, the alleged offence levelled against the petitioner is punishable with imprisonment for less than seven (07) years.
9. In this regard, it is apposite to mention the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar2, wherein a detailed guidelines were issued at Para Nos.11 and 12, for arresting a person, which are being reproduced herein below:-
11.Our endeavor in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorize detention casually and mechanically. In order to ensure what we have observed above, we give the following direction:
a).All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity 'the Cr.P.C.');
b)All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub- clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);
c) The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention;
d) The Magistrate while authorizing detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorize detention;
e) The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;2
(2014) 8 SCC 273 6
f) Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41-A of Cr.P.C be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the District for the reasons to be recorded in writing;
g) Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, he shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction.
h) Authorizing detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court.
12.We hasten to add that the directions aforesaid shall not only apply to the cases under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the case in hand, but also such cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine.
10. The similar view is also reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Md.Asfak Alam v. the State of Jharkhand3, which also reiterated the guidelines laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar.
11. In the light of the law laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar supra and Md. Asfak Alam surpa, the investigating officer is under legal obligation to proceed in accordance with law, but he shall follow the procedure prescribed under Sections 41 and 41(A) of 'the Cr.P.C.,' (now Sections 35 and 35(3) of 'the B.N.S.S.,' 2023). The petitioner is obliged to render his fullest cooperation in the ongoing investigation.
12. In the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the Investigating Officer to comply with Section 35(3) of 'the BNS'/41-A of 'the Cr.P.C.,' and to strictly follow the directions issued in the cases of Arnesh Kumar supra and MD. Asfak Alam supra.
_________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J 3 (2023) 8 SCC 632 7 Date: 26.11.2025 VTS