Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Venkata Reddy Kvr Alias Kayala Venkata ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 14 November, 2025

           HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

                    MAIN CASE No. Crl.P.No.11815 of 2025

                               PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.                                                                           OFFICE
        DATE                              ORDER
No.                                                                            NOTE
01.   14.11.2025   Dr.VJP, J
                                     I.A.No.2 of 2025
                         Heard Sri K.P.S.Sailesh Reddy, learned counsel
                   for the Petitioner / Accused No.1.

                         Learned counsel would submit that a case in
                   Crime No.47 of 2025 on the file of Koyyuru Police
                   Station, Alluri Sitharama Raju District for the offences
                   under Sections 308(4), 351(3) and 140(2) read with
                   3(5) of BNS and Section 3(1)(f), 3(2)(V)(va) of SCs &
                   STs (PoA) Act has been registered against the
                   Petitioner and others on the ground that while the de
                   facto complainant was carrying out operations of
                   laterite mining as per the rules and regulations of the
                   Government, Petitioner herein along with other
                   Accused threatened him demanding to transfer his
                   mining lease to them. It is further alleged that they
                   also kidnapped the De facto complainant and his
                   brother, switched off their phones, forcibly took him to
                   Bheemunipatnam Joint Sub Registrar Office and
                   obtained his signature on an agreement stating that
                   he had received Rs.20.00 lakhs for the said mining
                   lease. Learned counsel would further submit that,
                   prima facie there are no ingredients to attract the
                   offences alleged against the Petitioner. Learned
                   counsel for the Petitioner would further submit that
                   the Accused No.4 lodged a complaint dated
                   03.09.2025 before the National Commission for
                   Scheduled Tribes against the De facto complainant
                   alleging several irregularities in the laterite mining
                   lease in Bhamidika Village of Anakapalli District, due
                   to which, the mining operations in that area were
                   temporarily halted. As such, having borne grudge,
                   the present complaint has been lodged by the De
                   facto complainant against the Petitioner /A.1 along
                   with the other Accused with false allegations.

                       Learned counsel would further submit that there
                   is an inordinate delay in lodging the present
                   complaint as the alleged incident said to have taken
                         place on 27.05.2024, whereas, the present complaint
                        was lodged on 01.11.2025. The present complaint
                        has been lodged with a political motive. Learned
                        counsel finally prays to stay all further proceedings in
                        this matter.
                              Sri    M.Lakshminarayana,        learned    Public
                        Prosecutor takes notice on behalf of the State.
                        Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that, there
                        are specific allegations leveled against the
                        Petitioner/A.1 in the commission of the alleged
                        offences. It is further submitted that investigation is
                        at the nascent stage and the same may go on to
                        reveal the truth or otherwise of the said allegations.
                        In support of his contentions, learned Public
                        Prosecutor has placed reliance on the judgments of
                        the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muskan vs. Ishaan
                        Khan (Santaniya) & Others1 and the High Court
                        of Delhi in Om Prakash Srivastav @ Babloo vs.
                        State2.

                             As seen from the material, it appears prima
                        facie that there is a delay in lodging the FIR and
                        that there is verifiable material to be disclosed
                        during investigation and that, this is not the stage
                        to decide the truth or otherwise of the said
                        allegations or culpability of the Petitioner in the
                        commission of the alleged offences, by going into
                        merits of the case.
                              Considering the submissions made, Police are
                        directed not to take any coercive steps against the
                        Petitioner/A.1 relating to Crime No.47 of 2025 on the
                        file of Koyyuru Police Station, Alluri Sitharama Raju
                        District, till the next date of hearing.

                            However, it does not preclude the Police to
                        proceed with the investigation and file a report.

                            Petitioner shall appear before the Police as
                        and when directed by the Police and shall
                        cooperate with the investigation.

                                                                     ________
                                                                     Dr.VJP, J



1
    2025 INSC 1287
2
    2006 (92) DRJ 198
                Crl.P.No.11815 of 2025
      Meanwhile,      learned     counsel    for   the
Petitioner/A.1 is permitted to take out personal notice
to Respondent No.2 through Speed Post / Courier

and file proof of the same.

List the matter on 28.11.2025.

________ Dr.VJP, J Note: Issue C.C today B/o.

Dinesh