Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Posani Krishna Murali, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 10 April, 2025
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE: Crl.P.No.3970 OF 2025
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. OFFICE
DATE ORDER
No. NOTE
03. 10.04.2025 HN, J
The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner/accused submits that the petitioner is
arraigned as an accused in Cr.No.207 of 2024 on
the file of Sullurpet Police Station, Tirupathi District
for the alleged offence under Sections 196, 352,
351(2) of BNS. The petitioner approached this
Court and filed Crl.P.No.2434 of 2025. This Court
disposed of the Crl.P.No.2434 of 2025 directing
the Investigating Officer to follow the procedure
under Section 35(3) of BNSS for the purpose of
investigation, as all the alleged offences were
punishable below 7 years by following the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in
the matter of Arnesh Kumar V. State of Bihar
(2014 (8) SCC 273).
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that investigating officer i.e., M.Murali Kirshna,
Inspector of Police, has issued notice on
07.04.2025 purportedly under section 35(3) of
BNSS calling upon the petitioner to appear before
him for the purpose of investigation in relation to
Cr.No.207 of 2024 for the alleged offences under
Sections 196(1)(a), 352, 353(1), 351(2), 351(3) ..Contd
part II, 79, 61 (2), 111 r/w 62 r/w 3(5) of BNS and
Sec.6 r/w 3 of Indecent Representation Woman
(Prohibition) Act, 1986 and Section 66 r/w 43 of I.T
Act 2000-2008.
The learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that initially the petitioner was alleged to
have committed offences punishable under
Sections 196(1)(a), 352, 351(2), 351(3) of BNS
while registration of the crime on 14.11.2024. The
Investigation Officer has now issued a notice
calling upon the petitioner to appear on
15.04.2025 to submit his explanation for the
offences which are now additionally alleged in the
notice issued under section 35(3) of BNSS. It is
submitted that the provisions of Section 111 of
BNNS are now incorporated in a motivated
manner to arrest the petitioner or trouble the
petitioner in other ways.
The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
submits that the Investigation Officer has issued a
notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS in compliance
with the orders of this Court and as seen from the
notice issued by the Investigating Officer dated
07.04.2025 are reference to the orders of this
Court passed in Crl.P.No.2434 of 2025 are also
referred. As such the petitioner cannot claim that
the Investigating Officer has any motives or any
other agenda for issuance of such notice under
Section 35(3) of BNSS.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
..Contd
and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the
respondents.
Evidently, the petitioner was charged for the offence Under Sections 196(1)(a), 352, 351(2), 351(3) of BNS on 14.11.2024 when Cr.No.207 of 2024 was registered.
Now as seen from the notice issued by the investigating officer under Section 35(3) of BNSS, the following Sections are added additionally i.e., 351(3) part II, 79, 61 (2), 111 r/w 62 r/w 3(5) of BNS and Sec.6 r/w 3 of Indecent Representation Woman (Prohibition) Act, 1986 and Section 66 r/w 43 of I.T Act 2000. This Court has been categorically holding that invocation of Section 111 of BNS has to be sparing the use only in deserving cases. As the intention of the legislature in incorporating under section 111 of BNS is completely different. The same is being merrily misused by the police inspite of specific directions by this Court passed in the matter of Pappula Chalama Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. In W.P.No.2054 of 2024 and in the Crl.P.No.8201 of 2024.
The action of the investigation officer amounts to over reaching the authority of this Court and also the rule of Law. When a specific direction is issued by this Court, the attempt of the investigating officer to circumvent the orders of this Court has incorporated additional sections ..Contd including Section 111 of the B.N.S. This is a deliberate contempt committed by the investigating officer. The investigating officer in a latent manner has blatently attempted to violate the orders of this Court and issued the notice under Section 35(3) of B.N.S.S. by incorporating the additional offences including Section 111 of B.N.S. This is a classic case of non application of mind by the investigating officer in incorporating Section 111 of B.N.S. for the alleged interview given by the petitioner to a media channel. This requires serious consideration of this Court.
Accordingly, issue Form-1 notice to the Investigating Officer i.e, M.Murali Krishna, Inspector of Police, Sullurpet Circle, Tirupati District.
Returnable by 25.04.2025.
There shall be stay of all further proceedings in Cr.No.207 of 2024 of Sullurpet Police Station, Tirupathi District.
The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to take out personal notice to the 2nd respondent by RPAD and file proof of service in the Registry.
Post on 25.04.2025.
_____ HN, J KKV